

'The ' ^ ™jg^ 
Social iNTERPRRTAiifT^N? '■ 


1 OF HlS'rORY 


Maurice William , 


• 






THE LIBRARY 

OF 

THE UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA 

GIFT OF 



Jacob Bcwman 



LAU 



/^ 



THE SOCIAL ^INTERPRETATION 
OF HISTORY 



V^ 



The 

Social Interpretation 
of History 

A REFUTATION 
OF THE MARXIAN ECONOMIC 
INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

By 
MAURICE WILLIAM 



SOTERY PUBLISHING COMPANY 

62 Vernon Avenue, Long Island City 

NEW YORK 



Copyright, 1921 
Maurice William 
Brooklyn. N. Y. 



All rights reserved 



lOAN STACK 
GIFT 



Printed in the United States of America by 
Harper &• Brothers 



)-'. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAOB 

Preface to First General Edition . . . . vii 

Preface to Private Edition xix 

Introduction . . . . ' xxiii 

I. Policy and Tactics 1 

II. Socialist Principles 4 

III. "State Socialism" 8 

IV. The Socialists in Politics 31 

V. The Practical Program and Socialist Growth 37 

VI. Are Socialist Principles Scientific? ... 42 

VII. Marxian Scientific Socialism 48 

VIII. The Social Interpretation of History . . 67 ^U 

IX. "Marxists" and the Marxian Method . . 81 

X. Marxian Principles Antisocial 88 

XI. Whom Does Capitalism Exploit? .... 100 

XII. Expropriating the Expropriators . . . . 109 

XIII. "Marxism" and the Labor Movement . . 163 

XIV. "Marxism" and the Co-operative Movement 176 

XV. War as a Force in Social Evolution . . . 196 

XVI. The Russian Revolution 212 

XVII. The German Revolution 226 

XVIII. Conclusion 230 

APPENDIX I 

An Analysis of Hillquit's Analysis of the 

International Socialist Situation . . 268 



193 



CONTENTS 

APPENDIX II 

Manifesto and Program of tue Left Wing 

Section Socialist Party 2DU 

APPENDIX III 

Manifestos of the Third International and 
Statements by Lenine, Trotsky and 
Others 308 

A Letter to American Workingmen From 

THE Socialist Soviet Republic of Russia . 308 

Message from Nikolai Lenine to Workers of 

Great Britain 32G 

Trotsky's Speech to the Petrograd Soviet . 332 

Famous Twenty-one Points of the Third 

International 342 

Moscow International Issues Manifesto . 349 

Manifesto of the Moscow International . 358 

The New Communist Manifesto 368 

To the Workers of the World 379 

Third International in Session at Moscow . 388 
U. S. Socialist Request to Join Taken up in 

Moscow 392 



PREFACE TO FIRST GENERAL EDITION 

This volume made its first appearance in July, 
1020, as a limited private edition. 

Copies were forwarded to prominent Socialists of 
all factions, as I hoped to benefit by the criticism of 
Socialists of every hue. Such criticism was invited 
in the following 

AUTHOR'S NOTE: 

The World War has removed Socialism from the realm of 
academic discussion, and advanced it to first place as the 
momentous problem of the day. 

What promise does Socialism hold out to humanity? Has 
it come to destroy or to build? Does it mean progress and 
peace or does it mean chaos and civil war? Is it a menace 
to civilization or is it an inevitable stage in the development 
of civilization? 

The following pages are devoted to a discussion of these 
fundamental questions. 

Knowing of your deep interest in the subject, I take this 
means of bringing my views to your attention in the hope 
that I may obtain for them the benefit of your critical con- 
sideration. 

The world is prostrate and bleeding from a thousand wounds. 
The times call for a consultation of all minds in that our common 
judgment may prove equal to the herculean task of restoring a 
tottering and delirious world to sanity and health. 

At no time in history has an understanding of the laws con- 
trolling social processes been more imperatively needed than 
to-day. In knowledge rests the hope of the world. 



viii PREFACE TO FIRST GENERAL EDITION 

As a student, you are charged with an inescapable mandate, 
"Light, give us light," is the agonized cry of a world plunged 
in darkness. If not through common counsel, how is this cry 
of distress to be effectively answered? 

Your judgment of my contribution toward the answer will be 

gratefully received. 

Maurice William. 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 

One year has now elapsed since the distribution 
of my book. With two notable exceptions not a 
single Socialist offered his criticism or came forward 
in defense of doctrinaire Marxism. 

Socialists are never without a chip on their shoul- 
ders defying the world to meet their unanswerable (?) 
arguments, yet when a voice of doubt is raised from 
within their own ranks they find it more convenient 
to meet it with a conspiracy of silence. 

This general edition affords me an opportunity to 
submit my case to the great unbiased student body 
which, like myself, is in search of the truth. 

My conclusions, challenging the historic and 
scientific validity of Marxian Socialism, were formu- 
lated in 1919. That was a singularly inappropriate 
year to question theories which at least in one 
country had been translated into historic fact. 
Russia, in the throes of revolutionary fervor, stood 
out in triumphant vindication of Marxian principles. 
The spectacular success scored in Russia by uncom- 
promising, revolutionary, Marxian Sociahsm was the 
signal for a spontaneous world-wide revolt against 
the parhamentary reformism of the Second Inter- 
national. 



PREFACE TO FIRST GENERAL EDITION ix 

Socialist leaders whose whole reputation had been 
built upon a program of peaceful social reform were 
suddenly converted into uncompromising revolu- 
tionaries. Wliat a mad scramble to escape from the 
sinking Second International ship! No one has a 
good word to say for the Second International and its 
program of political action and peaceful social re- 
form. Now, they are all revolutionary Socialists. 
Could they have given more effective support to the 
charge that political democracy and social reform 
have no relation whatever to Marxian Revolutionary 
Socialism? 

Marxian principles can be applied only through a 
class movement of producers, whereas democratic 
principles are the agency of a social movement of 
consumers. No wonder Mr. Lenin, world leader of 
Marxian Socialism, scorns democracy as a bourgeois 1 
conception ! Marxian principles must wage relentless 
war upon democratic principles. Marxian Sociahsm 
is based upon the theory that class conflict is the K 
propelling motive force in history. 

The Social Interpretation of History is based upon 
the theory that man's effort to solve his problem of // 
existence is the propelling motive force in history. 
This is primarily a consumer problem. Class conflict 
is an effect, not a cause. The abolition of classes and 
class conflict cannot insure the permanency of a 
social system. Do its productive forces register an 
advance in the direction toward a solution to the 
problem of_ejdstem3e?^jrh^ is the final, historic test 
t o which all social systems are su bmitted. No 



'^. 




X PREFACE TO FIRST GENERAL EDITION 

social system can endure if it fails to meet this test. 
It will be superseded by a social system whose 
productive forces mark an advance in the direction 
towards a solution to the problem of existence. The 
fact that the new system may bring with it classes 
and the class struggle will not affect the change. 

These conclusions form the basis for the social 
interpretation of history. They constitute the 
theoretical premise for the prediction I made .two 
years ago that the "Socialism" of Russia, based 
upon the Marxian theory of the class struggle, is 
Utopian, must fail and will have to give way to the 
capitalist mode of production developed under a 
social system based upon political democracy. 
Has this prediction been vindicated? Let us see. 

Sociahsts of all countries did not find it at all 
difficult to persuade themselves that the ''Socialism" 
of Russia was a permanent institution. Lenin and 
Trotsky, flushed with victory, ordered Socialists 
everywhere to follow their example, or be branded 
as traitors to Marxian scientific Socialism. Russia 
claimed the right to dictate, for was it not the first 
to forever abolish Capitalism? 

Even as late as May, 1921, Lenin repeated his 
boast that he had completely destroyed the bourgeois 
system. Said he: ''The bourgeois class does not 
exist any more in R,ussia. We have completely 
destroyed the Russian bourgeoisie." But the very 
next month * the following startling announcement 
appeared: "F ree trade is inauourate d. Communist 

»New York Call, June 3, 1921. My Italics. 



PREFACE TO FIRST GENERAL EDITION xi 

Party's coiiftnonco approves scheme to encourage 
p rivate business." 

What can be the significance of this new and C^ 7 
wholly unexpected policy? How is it to be inter- ''' ' 
preted? The real interpretation is furnished by no 
less an authority than Lenin himself, who says, 
"Freedom of co mme rce means a return to 
CapitaHsm." ' 

So the dictatorship of the proletariat has dictated 
the a bolition of Socialism and the restoration of 
C apitalism! The Bolshe^^iki have abolished classes 

in order that they might create classes^! They have 

abolished the class struggle in order to give new life 
to the class struggle! The profit system and wage 
slavery have been abohshed. Long live private 
profit and wage slavery! 

Such are the practical achievements of the great 
*'SociaHst State." To insure their realization the 
Bolsheviki did not hesitate to apply the most ruth- 
less form of terrorism. Thousands of their own 
comrades met cruel deaths for their opposition to 
this mad experiment. Civil war of unheard-of 
ferocity, chaos, destruction, industrial paralysis, all 
these were not too high a price to pay to attain 
what? Capitahsm ! 

Morris Hillquit apparently failed to notice Lenin's 
capitulation to Capitahsm. In a lecture delivered a 
week later, he said, ''If anybody says Socialism is 
impossible, we can point to Russia." ^ Yes, we can 

^ Provda, March 10, 1921. 
2 New York Call. 



xii PREFACE TO FIRST GENERAL EDITION 

point to Russia and find that Marxian Socialism is — 
impossible! 

Marxian Socialists never learn from experience; 
they are too scientific for that. Notwithstanding the 
complete and tragic failure of their experiment in 
Russia, Lenin and Trotsky order Socialists of all 
nations to follow in their footsteps. Force a revolu- 
tion through civil war and the dictatorship of the 
proletariat, is their ukase to Socialists everywhere. 

That destruction caused by civil war falls with the 
greatest force upon the workers themselves is a 
matter of supreme indifference to these self-appointed 
leaders of the workers. Fortunately, the workers 
of Europe and America are httle influenced by the 
thunderings of Lenin and his Third International. 
They do not care to see the frightfulness of Bolshevist 
Russia repeated in their countries. But while Lenin 
and Trotsky failed in their attempt to apply their 
dogmas to the governments of Europe and America, 
in one direction their work of destruction was an 
unqualified success. They have brought about the 
complete disruption of the international Socialist 
movement. They have smashed the unified national 
units into three, four and even five different factions 
and ordered war to the knife between them. 

Having destroyed the Sociahst movement, they 
are attempting to apply the same tactics to the inter- 
national trade-union movement. They order Labor 
to destroy Labor. No group organized by Capital 
for the specific purpose of destroying the interna- 
tional Sociahst and Labor movement could have 



PREFACE TO FIRST GENERAL EDITION xiii 

accomplished its task more effectively than have the 
Bolsheviki. 

Yet Morris Hillquit tells us that true Socialists 
must support Lenin and Trotsky ''for the good they 
have accomphshed." Wliether he had in mind their 
destruction of the Socialist and Labor movement, 
their terrorism and civil war, their industrial collapse 
and restoration of Capitalism, or all of these, as 
''the good they had accomplished," Hillquit failed to 
indicate. 

The World War had subjected Capitahsm to the 
severest test in its history. The principle of private 
profit was pretty well discredited. In many de- 
partments of economic life the profit principle was 
completely abolished. Capitahsm found itself badly 
in need of a friend to help restore its lost prestige. 
The Bolsheviki proved themselves a most un- 
expected but none-the-less welcome friend. To-day 
finds them on their knees before world Capitalists 
begging them to save dying Russia. 

Capitalists are fully ahve to the significance of the 
situation and make the most of it. It is now their 
turn to take the upper hand and ask some pertinent 
and embarrassing questions. The Capitalist atti- 
tude toward Soviet Russia is voiced in an address 
delivered before the American Institute of Banking 
by Francis H. Sisson of the Guarantee Trust Com- 
pany of New York. Referring to the bankruptcy 
of Communism, Mr. Sisson says: 

And last, but not least, is the open, if unwilling acknowledg- 
ment, by Lenin, that Communism is bankrupt and must at last 



xiv PREFACE TO FIRST GENERAL EDITION 

give Capitalism unlimited freedom. Lenin and the long-suffer- 
ing Russian people have finally learned, at fearful cost, that 
Capitalism, the corner-stone of modern civiUzation, caimot be 
destroyed without accompHshing the destruction of civiUzation 
itself. ... I venture the suggestion that when history records 
the post-war period it will place more emphasis upon the sur- 
render of Communism to the empirical logic of Capitalism 
in accelerating universal economic stabilization than upon 
many events that are contemporaneously accorded far 
more importance. * 



Lenin is trying hard to make himself and his 
panicky disciples believe that Russia is not in 
danger of abolishing Communism and restoring 
Capitalism. He assures his followers that only 
small capitalists are to be encouraged. But from 
nttle acorns big oak trees grow, and as a man who 
is always swearing by IMarx, Lenin ought to know 
that from small capitalists big capitahsts grow. 

Nor is this all. 

CapitaUsm must have pohtical democrac y, for that 
is the only medium in which it caiKproperly function 
and grow. Small Capitalism therefore makes in- 
evitable both big Capitalism and pohtical democracy. 
All this will have been brought about through the 
dictatorship of the proletariat! 

Marxian Socialism has been put to the test in 
Russia. It proved a complete failure. The collapse 
of Bolshevism means the collapse of Marxian 
Socialism. History proved Marxian principles to 
be both Utopian and antisocial. They were swept 

» New_York Times, June 17, 1921. 



rUEFACE TO FIRST GENERAL EDITION xv 

aside by the inexorable operations of Social 
Evolution. 

The problems of consumers constitute the sole j /' 
concern of Social Evolution. Its task is to solve the 
problem of existence. The '' Socialism" of Russia is 
Utopian because it failed to register an advance in the 
direction towards a solution to the basic consumer 
problem: the problem of existence. 

C/nc^erproduction of the needs of consumers has 
made for the abolition of every social system re- 
corded in history. Underproduction of the needs of 
consumers is about to abolish the ''Socialism" of 
Russia. GaJiitalism will succeed Marxian scientific 



SQcialism be cause it is better qu alified to provide 
the needs of consu mers. Thus will the social system 
based up on the Utopian antisocial Marxian prin- 
ciples come to an end. 

While the attention of Marxian Socialists has been 
concentrated upon the great achievements of ''So- 
ciahsm" in Russia, a historic change of tremendous 
social significance is shaping itself in Germany. 

Marxian Socialists accuse German Socialists of 
having betrayed their principles. Germany might 
also have been a Socialist State if the social patriots 
had proved true to the principles of Karl Marx! 
But their betrayal made it impossible to establish 
Socialism, and CapitaUsm has again obtained the 
upper hand and is stronger than ever! Such is the 
reasoning of those who accept the conclusions of 
Karl Marx. 

What are the historic facts? In no country in the 



xvi PREFACE TO FIRST GENERAL EDITION 

world is Capitalism compelled to fight harder for its 
life than in Germany! The pre-war Capitalism of 
Germany proved a phenomenal producer. But to-day 
Germany must produce as it has never produced 
before. Production based upon the capitalist prin- 
ciple — profit — is being subjected to the severest test 
in its history. Under-pioduction of the needs of 
consumers is threatening the existence of the Capi- 
taUst system in Germany. 

In an effort to meet the requirements of the 
German people, the capitalists in control of the 
productive forces of the German nation are co- 
operating with their government in an effort to 
eUminate all waste and all elements that tend to 
retard production. These requirements call for the 
socialization of transportation, communication, dis- 
tribution as well as of the coal mines. While all this 
tends to stimulate production to an unprecedented 
degree it will fail to meet the extraordinary require- 
ments of the German people. The huge indemnity 
compels them to produce for the Allies as well as for 
themselves. 

Those hving to-day are destined to witness a 
remarkable historic phenomenon. In Russia, under- 
production is holding out its historic threat to 
"Socialism" and paving the way to Capitahsm, 
while at the same time in Germany underiproduction 
is holding out its historic threat to Capitalism and 
paving the way to Socialism. Both changes are 
compelled by the interests of consumers. 

Historically and therefore scientifically Germany, 



PREFACE TO FIRST GENERAL EDITION xvii 

not Russia, is destined to be the first Socialist State. 
It will be attained through the agency of the demo- 
cratic State. For the democratic State is not "a, 
bourgeois conception," but a historic development 
calculated to best serve the interests of the majority 
in their capacity as consumers. 

The German Majority Socialists have betrayed the 
principles of Karl Marx, but have been true to the 
consumer interests of the German people. This is 
the sole explanation for their vitahty. Their ac- 
tivities are based upon the hated social democratic 
reform program of the Second International. This 
program conforms to the laws of Social Evolution 
and therefore is scientific. 

The masses of the world have turned from the 
Socialists in proportion as the Socialists have turned 
from the practical program of the Second Inter- 
national. If Socialists want to regain and retain the 
support of the masses they will have to abandon the 
Utopian antisocial principles of Karl Marx and base 
their appeal upon the practical reform program of the 
Second International. 

Marxian ''scientific" Sociahsts glory in the Third 
International because its practical program is based 
upon the theoretical principles of Karl Marx. Yet 
this is precisely the reason the Third International is 
doomed to fail. 

The views advanced in this volume were developed 
two years ago. Two years are hardly a sufficient 
test for new social theories. But inasmuch as they 
are the only available test I ask the reader to com- 



xviii PREFACE TO FIRST GENERAL EDITION 

pare the views developed in these pages with the 
experiences of the past two years. Do recent tend- 
encies refute or support my conclusions? I shall 
cheerfully abide by the verdict of the unbiased reader. 
My thanks are due to Mr. D. H. Robbins for his 
assistance in rearranging some of the material. 
Mr. Robbins is in no way to be held responsible for 
the views or criticisms advanced in these pages. 
The responsibility is solely my own. 

Maurice William. 

Brooklyn, N. Y., August, 1921 



PREFACE TO PRIVATE EDITION 

In these days of disorganization and disintegration, 
a contribution dealing with the problems of Inter- 
national Socialism hardly calls for an apology. 

The following study was undertaken in December, 
1918, and completed in July, 1919. At the outset I 
little dreamed that this investigation would lead me 
to question the validity of Marxian conclusions. A 
disciple of Marxian SociaUsm for more than a quarter 
of a century, I have had unbounded faith in the claim 
that Marxian principles are based upon the science 
and laws of social evolution. To me it is now evident 
that this claim cannot stand the test of an original 
investigation. 

Did Marx discover the laws of social evolution? 
Do his principles conform to these laws? Did he put 
Socialism upon a scientific basis? I can no longer 
answer these questions in the affirmative without 
violence to the facts of history. History seems to -^/S' 
indicate that Marxian principles are neither scien- 
tific nor socialistic, but, on the contrary, are both 
Utopian and anti-social. These conclusions have 
been forced upon me by the lessons of history. -u^ 

I am aware that the views I have developed in 
.these pages are quite unorthodox. They constitute 



XX PREFACE TO PRIVATE EDITION 

an indictment of the leaders of International So- 
cialism who believe they have been following in the 
footsteps of Marx. While Marx may have erred in 
his conclusions, he was none the less a scientist. He 

c^" applied the scientific method. History alone fur- 
nished the basis for his conclusions. He may have 
^^ misread the lessons of history, but he never looked 
elsewhere for his understanding of social processes. 
Present-day leaders of International Socialism, unlike 

j^ Marx, refuse to study history, preferring to cling 
dogmatically to the conclusions formulated by Marx 
in 1848. Such is the extent of their "science." Our 
leaders could not have chosen a more effective 
method of bringing about the destruction of the 
International Socialist movement. 

Although this study was completed almost a year 
ago, for ob\dous reasons I did not care to obtain 
pubHcity for my conclusions without first sub- 
mitting them to authoritative criticism. But in the 
meanwhile many things have happened. The So- 
ciahst Party of America has been split up into war- 
ring factions. The Left groups are subjecting the 
Party to scathing criticism. Neither has the Third 
International been sparing in its criticism of the 
American SociaUst Party. These criticisms have 
obtained ■\A'ide pubHcity. I therefore feel that 
nothing that I might say could react against the 
Sociahst Party with greater force than the criticisms 
that have already been leveled against it. 

Nevertheless, I prefer to -withhold my conclusions 
from the general pubUc, pending their review by 



PREFACE TO PRIVATE EDITION xxi 

authoritative critics. To this end, I have elected to 
publish a Hmited private edition, copies of which I 
propose to place in the hands of those whose training 
and activities would indicate their special fitness to 
pass upon the merit of my material. Th'eir judg- 
ment will determine the final disposition of the data 
I have collected. 

The material gathered in this httle volume has 
been developed under conditions that proved most 
trying. Enjoying but little leisure, I could devote 
but an occasional hour to my task. That this volume 
is sadly lacking in hterary merit is to me all too ap- 
parent. It is not, however, the form but the sub- 
stance that I wish to submit for critical consideration. 

Not a line of this work has been altered since it 
was finished about a year ago. I have made certain 
predictions. These shall be submitted to the test of 
Time. 

This contribution is the effort of a humble member 
of the rank and file — a ''Jimmie Higgins" in the 
Socialist Party. Twenty-five years of close affilia- 
tion with the Socialist movement is the only excuse 
I have to offer for my deep interest and saddened 
heart over the wreckage and ruin of our once ap- 
parently healthy movement. 

I wish to do what I can to restore our Party not 
as a hollow monument to the dead past but as an 
effective social instrument for the Hving present. 

Brooklyn, N. Y. 
June, 1920. 



INTRODUCTION 

"The Socialist International is dead, long live the 
Capitalist International ! " 

Such is the slogan the enemies of Socialism joyously 
proclaim. To attempt to withhold this sad truth 
from the world and from ourselves would be more 
than folly; it would be criminal. 

The World War has shattered the Sociahst Inter- 
national. It has shattered the units comprising the 
International. It has engendered war between the 
units and between the factions within the units. 

To all mankind the World War appears as the most 
colossal tragedy in history; to the Socialist it has 
brought a double tragedy, the unprecedented slaugh- 
ter and the internal disruption of the Party to the 
creation and nurture of which he had so willingly de- 
voted the best years of his Ufe. 

Where is the comradeship which but yesterday 
thrilled us with its warm and binding force? The 
devoted and scholarly comrade of yesterday is looked 
upon as the traitor and renegade of to-day. Every- 
where we find the SociaHsts arrayed against each 
other. In the countries where the Party is small 
and weak, the strife between them manifests itself 
in theoretical discussions which fail to convince 



xxiv INTRODUCTION 

either side, but rather lead to more intense bitter- 
ness. In other countries where the SociaHsts, if 
united, could be a compelling factor in advancing 
social progress, we find them split up into rival 
camps, waging war on one another, hopelessly im- 
potent as a social force. And when the long-yearned- 
for day has at last arrived, the day that would see 
thrones shattered, revolutions joyously proclaimed, 
and the powers of government vested in the hands 
of Socialists, what picture greets our gaze? Har- 
monious and joyous comradeship, united by the 
binding force of victory and peace? Such was the 
picture which filled the minds and inspired the souls 
of the exalted martyrs who rotted in cells and shed 
their blood that this picture might find its counter- 
part in the world of man. Reahties, alas, refuse to 
conform to mental images. Revolutionary Russia 
finds the Socialists not at peace, but at war. The 
red flag, the symbol of comradeship and brother- 
hood, has been converted into the symbol of chaos, 
strife, and the blood that gushes from the breast of 
Comrade in answer to the bayonet plunged by the 
hand of Comrade. In Germany, too, Comrades bap- 
tize a Socialist victory with the blood of Comrades. 
Each bayonet finds its mark not alone in the breast 
into which it is plunged, but pierces also the breast 
and heart of every devoted Comrade the world over, 
the noble men and women whom we attracted and 
inspired with our promise of comradeship, brother- 
hood and peace. 

Five years ago was there a Socialist in the world 



INTRODUCTION xxv 

who could have beheved that, when the test came, 
the International would collapse? Yet Socialists 
have looked upon themselves as the world's seers. 
Of all in society, the Socialists alone saw the pos- 
sibility of a world war. They recognized in the 
present epoch of commodity production a constant 
menace to the peace of the world. Over four years 
of world carnage, millions upon millions of prema- 
ture graves and untold milUons of disfigured and 
mutilated furnish ghastly proof of the vaUdity of the 
Socialist prediction. 

The end of the World War has come at last. 
Never have the masses been in greater need of the 
teachings of a united Socialist movement. From all 
sides upturned faces look yearningly to us for 
guidance. Never was opportunity greater. Yet 
never were we so incapable of taking advantage of 
it. We preach co-operation, but among ourselves we 
are hopelessly divided. 

In former days SociaHsts would smile at state- 
ments by non-Socialists to the effect that there seem 
to be fifty-seven different varieties of Socialism; but 
can we smile at that statement to-day? No longer 
have we one International, but two, and each charges 
the other with being a traitor to humanity and to 
''scientific SociaUsm." 

Who, in the present chaos and upheaval, would 
undertake to define the aims and methods of So- 
cialism? Does Socialism mean the dictatorship of 
the proletariat and ci\'il war, or does it mean Social 
Democracy? Does it mean the destruction of the 



xxvi INTRODUCTION 

State or does it mean legal methods through the 
democratic state machinery? Does it mean class 
rule or does it mean the aboHtion of class rule? The 
following is one of the articles adopted by the Con- 
gress of the Communist International held in March, 
1919: ''The revolutionary epoch demands that the 
proletariat should employ such fighting methods as 
will concentrate its entire energy, viz.: the method 
of mass action, and lead to its logical consequence — 
the direct collision with the capitalist state machine in 
an open combat.'^ Do our leaders wish us to accept 
this as the correct Socialist position? 

Is it the aim of Sociahsm to emancipate the masses 
or does it aim to enslave the bourgeoisie? In the 
same manifesto of the Communist International we 
find that: ''Only after the proletariat has achieved 
victory and has broken the resistance of the bour- 
geoisie can it make use of its former opponents for 
the benefit of the new order by placing them under its 
control and gradually associating them in the work 
of Communist reconstruction." 

If this henceforth to be accepted as scientific 
Socialism? 

What is the character of the Socialism of the Social 
Revolutionary and Social Democratic parties of 
Russia who stand in opposition to the Bolsheviki? 
These groups have made official request for the crea- 
tion of an international commission consisting of 
representatives of all Socialist parties to visit Russia 
and after inquiries on the spot to give clear answers 
to the following questions: 



INTRODUCTION xxvu 

(1) Are wo right, yes or no, when we declare that the Bolshe- 
vist Government has deg(!nerated into an instrument of reaction; 
and although it hides behind the words, "the will of the work- 
men and peasants," does not shrink from the most extreme 
measures of oppressions directed against these same workmen 
and peasants? 

(2) Are we right when we declare that the Bolshevist Govern- 
ment has now no other aim than to preserve at all costs its own 
power, and that with this object it is ready to sacrifice all the 
conquests of the revolution and take refuge in a state of terrorism 
directed not against the bourgeoisie, but against the other 
Socialist parties and the mass of proletariat and peasants whom 
they represent, and that, finally, eager to justify itself in the 
eyes of the foreign conquerors it has not hesitated in connection 
with the Mirbach incident to lay at his feet the dead bodies of 
two hundred of its own Social Revolutionary countrymen? 

(3) Are we right when we declare that Bolshevism has done 
nothing to apply Socialist principles and has only succeeded in 
destroying industry and bringing about universal unemployment 
and starvation? 

(4) Are we right when we declare that the Bolshevist Govern- 
ment denies every possibility to open discussion or to struggle 
for what we consider to be Russia's only hope of salvation, 
namely, the summoning of the Constitutional Assembly and the 
re-establishing of popular means of local administration — in a 
word, the placing of all power in the hands of the people? 

(5) Are the Bolsheviki right when they assert that all other 
Russian Socialist parties are seeking not to free the working 
classes from the despotic oppression of a small minority, but are 
in concert with the bourgeois and monarchist elements to bring 
about a counter revolution? 

Has the requested commission been created? 
Has it visited Russia? Were its findings such as to 
justify the National Executive Committee of the 



xxviii INTRODUCTION 

Socialist Party of the United States in making this 
declaration: 

Economically and socially, as well as politically, the Russian 
Socialist Soviet Republic is a government of the workers, by the 
workers, and for the workers. We denounce as utterly incom- 
patible with any principles of democratic or international decency 
any and all plans of invasion. We call upon all true believers 
in democracy in the United States to join with us in urging our 
government to recognize the Russian Soviet Republic. [My 
italics.] 

Upon what does the National Executive Com- 
mittee base its appeal to all true believers in de- 
mocracy in behalf of Bolshevist Russia? Does the 
Sociahst Party indorse the Bolshevist form of de- 
mocracy for this country? 

The Socialist movement has always been very 
boastful in its claims that it is a scientific movement 
and that all of its activities are based upon a clear 
understanding of social processes. What are we 
told to-day? We are now told that the Second 
International was not a Socialist International at 
all, but a traitor to ''scientific" SociaUsm. 

As to Socialist literature, on all sides we hear the 
demand raised that all the ''scientific" Sociahst 
literature written in the past forty years and upon 
which the appeal for the people's support was made 
should now be suppressed and new and genuinely 
"scientific" hterature be pubhshed in its stead. 
• Nor is this all. 

The practical program of the Second International, 
which has been used as the bait with which to attract 



INTRODUCTION xxix 

the support of the masses, is now to be discarded 
and a new and ''scientific " program substituted in its 
place. The SociaHst movement must atone, we are 
told, for all the activities of the Second Interna- 
tional, for it is now clear that they were not based 
upon Marxian Scientific Socialism. And yet, after 
the discovery of this startling situation, it is still 
said that differences within the movement are but 
differences over policy and tactics! 

How are we to know that the new Communist 
International which to-day is offered as the only 
"scientific" Socialist International will not a few 
years hence also be exposed as a traitor to scientific 
Socialism? 

By what means are we to test the new literature of 
scientific Socialism, which it is demanded should now 
be written, to supplant the literature of the past 
forty years? How are we to know that the new 
"practical" program which is to replace the one that 
has stood for scientific Socialism for these many 
years is sufficiently scientific to stand the test of 
time? 

These questions must be met and answered if the 
International Socialist movement is to endure. 
Leadership carries with it responsibilities as well as 
honors. Our leaders have something to answer for 
to the members of the rank and file. They have led 
the International Socialist movement and they have 
led it to destruction. We of the rank and file are 
beginning to suspect the trustworthiness of our 
leaders. They have been telling us that the Socialist 



INTRODUCTION 

movement is a scientific movement, and now they 
tell us that all the activities of the past forty years 
were unscientific and must be undon§". What faith 
can we place in their word that the new Interna- 
tional, the new Uterature and the new program will 
this time be certain to be scientific? 

Before we again follow our leaders we demand 
that they prove to us that they are fit to lead. 
Before they again pretend to lead in a scientific 
movement they must prove that they understand 
what determines the scientific character of a move- 
ment. What is a scientific movement? Did Marx 
say that a scientific movement is one that is based 
upon some ^"ise man's conclusions? WTiat did he 
say? Do our leaders use the methods of Marx by 
which to determine the scientific character of their 
activities? Our leaders have ignored Marx's method. 
It is only his conclusions that have interested them. 
Marx studied society, but so-called Marxists study 
formulae. 

This study of society has been undertaken in the 
spirit of Marx, utilizing his scientific method of re- 
search. If the conclusions arrived at differ from 
those of Mai*x, it is but a proof that in no science is 
it possible to carry research to a final conclusion. 
The fundamental thing in science is research and 
not conclusions. 

I make no pretense that my conclusions are the 
last word upon the subject; I expect no one blindly 
to accept them. What I do ask is that all serious- 
minded SociaUsts recognize the imperative need for 



INTRODUCTION xxxi 

an exhaustive study of our internal problems. A 
scientific movement must seek to determine causes, 
and not dismiss vital differences by a resort to abuse 
and personalities. 

If enough of our Comrades give serious study to 
the nature of our problems, we shall soon find our- 
selves well on the way toward their solution. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION 
OF HISTORY 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION 
OF HISTORY 

CHAPTER I 

POLICY AND TACTICS 

Differences within the Second International are 
as old as the International itself. This is far from 
an original discovery. Socialist forums have echoed 
the opposing views of the master minds the world 
over. These differences have been responsible for 
a very large proportion of Socialist literature. Yet 
the problems are still with us with little hope of 
solution. 

There have been instances where the theoretical 
principles which form the basis for Socialist activity 
have been brought into question, usually by narrow- 
ing their scope through exceptions and limitations.^ 
But the main ground for heated discussion has been 
policy and tactics, the policy and tactics of the Left^ 
wdng or revolutionary group always differing rad- 
ically from that of the Right wing or so-called 

^ (Conspicuous among those who have undertaken this task is 
Edward Bernstein.) 
2 See Left Wing Manifesto, p. 290. 



2 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

moderates. The moderate wing in all countries has 
always m-ged that special stress be laid upon reforms 
that were calculated to advance the immediate in- 
terests of the working class. The Left or extremist 
group holds fast to the policy of emphasizing the 
revolutionary character of the Socialist movement, 
leaving it to non-Socialist parties to capitaUze a 
platform of reform. Thus the controversy over 
policy and tactics has narrowed down to the question 
of emphasis, and that is where it rests to-day. It 
is therefore necessary that we make a study of the 
theoretical basis for Socialist pohcy and tactics. 

There are to be found in every country where the 
right of suffrage has been won, a number of political 
parties. Each party represents the economic in- 
terests of its creators. Each must go before the 
people with an appeal for support. Each states its 
position in a drawn-up platform. 

Nearly all of the non-Socialist parties have this 
in common: their poHcy and tactics dictate their 
platforms. As the principal aim of a non-Socialist 
party is to obtain political victory, and as this is 
obtainable only through the support of a substantial 
proportion of the electorate, the policy and tactics 
therefore dictate a platform in which every faction 
of the electorate is catered to, and its particular 
interests furthered. Thus we find that the platform 
promises a reduction of taxes to property owners 
and an extension of public improvements to attract 
the general voter; an extension of foreign markets 
and a decrease in military expenditures, a high 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 3 

tariff and a reduction in the cost of living, etc., 
etc. 

It is evident, therefore, that in non-Socialist parties 
the policy and tactics dictate the platform. In 
striking contrast to this, with the SociaUst parties 
the world over, it is the platform which dictates the 
policy and tactics. 

Socialists, too, wish to attract the support of a 
large proportion of the electorate, but it is not this 
aim which dictates their platform. To Socialists, 
political office is not an end in itself, but a means to 
an end. They have chosen the political method of 
applying in a practical way the fundamental prin- 
ciples which form the basis of their philosophy. 
It is their principles which form the basis for their 
platform. Their poUcy and tactics, therefore, must 
conform to and their scope limited by their platform. 

It therefore becomes evident that if there is con- 
troversy within the movement, if there is factionalism 
and disruption and if there is general instability, the 
cause must be sought not in differences over policy 
and tactics, but in the very principles themselves. 

It becomes necessary that we set ourselves the 
task of re-examining our fundamental principles in 
the hope that it may lead to a discovery of the 
underlying cause of all our problems. 



CHAPTER II 



SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES 



The International Socialist movement bases its 
activities on the principles laid down by Marx and 
Engels in the Communist Manifesto published in 1848. 

Three theoretical propositions constitute the fun- 
damental basis of the Communist Manifesto. They 
are: the materialistic conception of history, the 
class struggle and the theory of surplus value. The 
history theory shows that all social systems are but 
a reflex of their economic foundation. The class 
struggle has been an inseparable phenomenon of 
every social system, manifesting itself in different 
forms in different epochs. In present-day capitalist 
society the class struggle arises from the fact that 
capital extracts surplus value from the working class. 
This exploitation takes place at the point of pro- 
duction. 

How can this exploitation be eliminated? Indus- 
trial concentration and the class struggle indicate 
the way. The capitalist system must be abolished 
and replaced by the co-operative commonwealth. 

In this very brief outline we find the basis for all 
Socialist activities as is indicated by the following 
quotation :^ 

1 American Socialist Party Platform, 1912. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 5 

"The first assertion of Socialism is its firm and 
final conviction that the present social order has 
served its functions, outgrown its usefulness, is 
henceforth utterly incompetent to meet the needs 
of human society, has become the source of unspeak- 
able misery and suffering to the whole working class 
and therefore must be abandoned. Capitalism must 
be overthrown. Any longer compromising, temporizing 
or reforming of capitalism is not only useless, it is 
criminal.'^ (My italics.) 

This is the theoretical stand taken by Sociahst 
parties the world over. It was initiated by Marx and 
Engels nearly three quarters of a century ago and 
has not been deviated from to this day. Capitalism 
endures only because the Socialist parties lack the 
necessary power to abolish it. So according to 
Hillquit,' the chief aim of Socialist activity is therefore 
to develop the numerical strength and political maturity 
required for the ultimate conquest of the powers of 
government. 

This gives us one phase, the theoretical phase, of 
Socialist activities. But in the past forty years, 
another, a practical phase, has developed and grown 
to large proportions. The Socialist parties of the 
world became the champions of a positive program 
of industrial and social reforms and State Socialism. 
A long list of immediate demands planks became a 
regular feature of every Sociahst party platform. 

What is the relation between this practical program 
and the Marxian theoretical principles? Do the 

1 Socialism in Theory and Practice. 



6 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

principles justify the program? It does not appear 
so. The American SociaUst Party has taken the 
stand that reforming of capitaHsm is not only useless, 
but is criminal. Yet that very platform contains 
a long list of immediate demands! Apart from this 
glaring contradiction, their relation to the theoretical 
principles must be determined. 

We have seen that the modern class struggle arises 
from the fact that surplus value is extracted at the 
point of production. Modern production is social in 
its nature. The ownership of the social tools is 
vested in the hands of one class — the capitalist class. 
The laborer must use these tools in order to live, for 
he has nothing but his labor power to sell. This 
labor power he sells to the tool-owning capitaHst. 
The laborer obtains his pay in wages for so many 
hours of labor power. This represents only a portion 
of the values his labor created. The remainder — the 
surplus value — is appropriated by the tool-owning 
capitalist. For the laborer to increase his wages 
means a reduction in the amount of surplus value 
remaining to the capitalist; for the capitaHst to 
increase his portion, means either reduced wages, 
lengthened hours, or improved machinery and inten- 
sified labor effort. Between the tool owners and the 
users there is an irrepressible conflict — the class 
struggle. The economic interests of capital and 
labor are diametrically opposed. 

In what way does the Socialist practical program 
of reform and State Socialism affect the extraction 
of surplus value? Is the portion falling to the cap- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 7 

italist class threatened by this program? These are 
some of the fundamental questions which have been 
agitating the international Socialist movement for 
years and still remain unsettled. Let us, as an 
instance, observe the Socialist attitude toward 
State Socialism, 



CHAPTER III 



"state socialism" 



The significance of "State Socialism" from the 
Socialist standpoint has for years been a subject of 
heated discussion. Four years of world war has 
taken this subject out of the realm of academic 
discussion and advanced it to the first place as the 
momentous practical problem of the day. 

The party members very naturally look to their 
leaders and party organs for a well-defined position 
upon this vexing problem. They ask: "Are we to 
see in State Socialism a promise or a menace? 
Does it mean intensified exploitation by the State 
or does it mean the undermining of the principle of 
private property? Should Socialists work for it, 
against it, or ignore it?" 

How have the leaders met this plea for intelhgent 
enlightenment? 

Joshua Wanhope has until recently been the chief 
editorial writer on the New York Call, the ofl&cial 
organ of the Socialist Party in the East. Wanhope 
has for a great many years been recognized as a 
brilliant Socialist editor and teacher. Thousands of 
Socialists read his writings and accept his conclusions. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 9 

Let US examine some of his writings with a view to 
discovering his position as to the role of the Sociahsts 
in promoting social reform and State Socialism. The 
following samples of his writings ought to prove 
illuminating. 

Just a few days prior to the 1916 presidential 
election, Wanhope undertook to give Mr. Norman 
Hapgood^ a primary lesson in Socialist economics, 
principles, policy and tactics. With full knowledge 
of the importance of the moment, Wanhope very 
carefully proceeded to explain in the simplest pos- 
sible language — '^what we have explained thousands 
of times": 

We have what we call the Capitalist system. Under the 
Capitalist system one set of men own the tools of production. 
Another set uses them. We are trying to make this very simple 
for Mr. Hapgood. 

The set of men that own the tools . . . value their ownership 
only because they are able to make a profit from it. Through 
ownership they are able to levy a tribute two ways — first on 
every man and woman who works in these industries, and 
second, on every person who uses the product of these indus- 
tries. Out of the ownership they make profit, and though the 
owners may live thousands of miles from what they own, they 
get their profit just the same. 

We hope Mr. Hapgood follows closely, for this is all essential 
to beginners. The profit that is made out of ownership of in- 
dustry by private individuals or corporations, ranges from the 
trifling income of the small magnate to the miUions that come 
to a Morgan or a Rockefeller. The amount of profit that is 
made by any man is not of moment. What counts is, that it is 



^ (Mr. Norman Hapgood asks our opinion — We oblige him. — New 
York Call, November 2, 1916). 



10 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

this system under which our entire system is conducted. This 
we call the profit system or the capitalist system. . . . 

Upon the system of industry all else is built. Everything roots 
back into the economic system. . . . 

Now, this industrial or economic system is either good or it is 
bad. It is either right or it is wrong. And we Socialists hold 
that any system under which one class may lay tribute upon 
another and collect that tribute at the point of starvation is 
utterly indefensible, and must go. We are at war upon that system. 
We cannot compromise with it. We cannot say this year it is 
good though last year it was bad, and it may be bad again next 
year. We are against it always and constantly. We do not and 
cannot switch our principles from one pocket to another to suit 
somebody's whim. 

PoUtical parties represent economic interests. . . . 

Now, Mr. Hapgood, the Socialist party represents in politics 
that industrial group that works but does not own. Between 
the owning and the non-owning or dispossessed group there is a 
^vide gulf. Only a great fundamental change can wipe out that 
gulf. 

Because there is this gulf of ownership we have these two 
classes — owning and working. The owning class naturally lays 
tribute upon the working class and the working class has to sub- 
mit, or as we sometimes say, it has to pay. It has no way out 
of paying at present, since it pays by the very process of working. 
And the working class must work to stay alive. . . . This conflict 
is here, and it is very real, we assure you, Mr. Hapgood. In 
politics it is as real as it is in the factory. It is a thing of life, a 
thing of soul to the workers. Their struggle for emancipation is 
with them inspired. When they understand that great struggle 
thoroughly they can no more desert their cause and their class 
than they could take out their souls for barter. 

So then, Mr. Hapgood, our opinion is this: x\ny Socialist who 
really does vote for any candidate except a Socialist candidate, 
is not really a Socialist at all. If he has thought he was a So- 
cialist, he has been deceiving himself. He may have been very 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 11 

sincere about it all, but he lias been mistaken. Things are not 
black and white at the same time. Two and two are always 
four. And the Capitalist system of industry is always here. 
There are certain things that are not changed by words. Sophis- 
try does not wipe out realities. 

Now to go further. It is not denied that Mr. Wilson is a candi- 
date of a capitalist party. He is a Democrat. His campaign 
bills are for the most part paid by capitalists. The capitalist 
class supports the Democratic Party. If it did not, there would 
be no Democratic Party. Now, Mr. Poole has cited a few 
measures enacted by the Democratic Party which he places 
value upon. He likes certain laws and he thinks that if Wilson 
is elected again we shall have more of them. 

Very frankly, we say that there are some laws that have been 
passed by the Democratic administration that have social value. 
But we deny that we have these laws because of any Democratic 
conscience. Rather, we have them because of Democratic — or 
Ca pitalist — fear. 

The Socialist movement is a movement for the workers against 
the exploiters. It represents the protest of labor against what is 
while it also represents labor's aspirations for the future. 

In the course of its growth, this movement compels the repre- 
sentatives of capitalism to give ground here and there; attack 
on any organization forces the other side to give way wherever 
the attack grows to a point where it menaces the safety or se- 
curity of the organization under attack. So it has been in the 
fight of the Socialists on the capitalist system. It has to give way 
in a good many places. 

We find an illustration of this in the history of Bismarck's V 

efforts to demolish the Socialist movement of Germany some 
thirty-five years ago. Bismarck, Mr. Poole will remember, 
adopted a policy of enacting reform legislation in order to check the 
rapidly groiving Socialist movement. He came out for old age 
pensions, workmen's compensation and several measures of 
that stamp. In fact, he went much further than Mr. Wilson 
has gone. He ivas driven harder, you see. 



12 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

But the Socialists were not deceived. Mr. Poole, who is a So- 
cialist Party member, doubtless knows how August Bebel and 
a few other Socialists in the Reichstag even went so far as to 
vote against Bismarck's reform measures when they first came 
up. They said, "These are but sops and we will have nothing 
to do with them." Later they changed their attitude and said, 
"We will take what we can get," and voted for the Bismarck 
concessions. 

There was a test, Mr. Hapgood, that points the course of 
Socialists when they get a capitalist government on the run. 
They don't run to join the Government. They run to drive it 
further. 

August Bebel would not vote for Wilson this year. He would 
do all he could to roll up a tremendous Socialist vote to drive 
Wilson harder. 

The pressure of labor's protest has its effect constantly. Every 
ounce of pressure put against the capitalist system forces that 
much yielding. And every inch yielded is an inch nearer the filial 
goal for the workers. 

This pressure of labor has been strong during the last four 
years. It has been growing stronger each year. It has been 
growing for several decades. It would be strange, indeed, Mr. 
Hapgood, if these years of agitation and growth and pressure 
did not force from the capitalist system some surrender, here 
and there. And that is just what has happened and what will 
continue to happen. And we make this prediction and this 
promise. No matter what capitahst candidate may be elected 
President or what candidates may be elected to Congress, if the 
revolutionary protest of labor as expressed through the Socialist 
Party is strong enough, there will be more forced from the 
capitalist system during the next four years than has been 
dreamed of in the past four years. 

We do not deny that we are making progress. We do not deny 
that we are getting legislation to-day that could not have been 
got twenty years ago or ten years ago, hut we do declare that what 
we are getting is the fruit of our own fighting, and is not given to us 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 13 

by chantahlc-mindcd Democrats who represent the system against 
which our whole great fight is waged. // the capitalist system 
gives, it gives hecaxise it has to, hecausc it must, because it is sub- 
ject to the laws of self-preservation as is any other institution 
or organization. 

In this struggle between the classes you must get down to 
fundamentals, Mr. Hapgood. You must examine causes. That 
is where you have been weak. That is where Mr. Poole is weak. 
You are looking at clouds and you think that the clouds are 
moving themselves around, whereas it is the moving air that 
drives the clouds around. 

So there you have our views, Mr. Hapgood. We are glad to 
give them, glad to have you ask for them. We shall be glad to 
keep on giving them as long as there are persons who are not 
familiar with them. We are glad also to give them for the 
benefit of Mr. Poole. Fortunately for the working class, there 
are not many who call themselves Socialists, who are thus by 
their deeds planning to deny their Socialism and their class. 
There are very few, Mr. Hapgood, in spite of the clever press 
work that has been done by the Democratic Party. That is a 
good measure of the soundness of the overwhelming bulk of 
Socialists. They know where they stand and why. 

Perhaps you will not agree with what we have said. We 
hardly expect that you will. But we assure you that what we 
have said is the truth. And really, if you do not understand it, 
we shall not be deeply grieved. It is a doctrine for the workers. 
And they are going to show by their votes this year that they 
are coming to understand it in numbers that will startle the 
nation. 

At the polls, Mr. Hapgood, we will express our faith. There 
we will pledge anew our loyalty to our class. [My italics.] 

The reader will readily understand why the fore- 
going article is quoted at length. It is Wanhope at 
his best; a masterful presentation of the orthodox 
Socialist conception of the role of the Socialist in 



14 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

stimulating social progress. The vast majority of 
Socialists give this doctrine their unqualified sup- 
port, and find here the logic for their policy and 
tactics. 

Now, the above was wTitten in November, 1916. 
Wanhope has wTitten much since then. Let us con- 
trast some of his later wTitings with the above. 

Bismarck's program of State Socialism, Wanhope 
told us at one time, was due to the fear of the gro^ving 
menace of Socialism. It was the growth of the So- 
ciaUst movement which compelled Bismarck to yield 
these concessions. The Socialists were responsible 
for these working class gains. They represented a 
distinct loss to the capitalist class and a correspond- 
ing gain to the workers. 

But shortly afterward, he had the following to say 
of German State Socialism: 

It is true that German efficiency is due to what may be called 
"State Socialism," but it is also true that the Socialists have not 
been and are not now the deliberate driving force in this direction. 
On the contrary, tliey have had nothing more to do with it as a party 
than to forecast it as a necessary part of the development of cap- 
italism and explain why capitalist society must take that road; 
the original promoters and executors of this tendency have in prac- 
tically every case been capitalists.^ [My italics.l 

Although we learn in November, 1916, that So- 
cialists forced Bismarck to adopt a State Socialist 
program, "Wanhope completely reverses himself in 
January, 1917, saying that the capitalists and not 
the Sociahsts have been the driving force in this 

^ New York Call, January 17, 1917. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 15 

direction. Therefore, the working class, Wanhope 
argues, is not interested in State Sociahsm because 
the capitahst class is the sole promoter and bene- 
ficiary of State Socialism. 

A few months later Wanhope in an editorial, 
Humbling the Haughty Coal Barons," says: 



(< 



Government ownership of coal mines isn't Socialism, of course; 
it is nothing more than what is recognized in popular terms as 
"State Socialism." But while it is a very debatable point as to 
whether there is any "benefit for the working class" it certainly 
has the merit of scaring the coal mine owners into promises, at any 
rate, of decent behavior. Tlicy are genuinely frightened by it, not 
because of any certain and immediate reduction of their profits, 
but rather because with their finely developed property instinct 
they recognize it as a menace to the principle of their ownership, 
the entrance of the thin end of a wedge that threatens to split the 
entire property system asunder, and rather than that even the 
beginning of such a thing should occur, they are more than 
willing to forego immediate profits, if that is the penalty for 
checking its advance. 

We sincerely wish we could induce large numbers of Socialist 
theoreticians to see the matter in this light and lay stress on the 
weight and importance of this particular feature. It would 
simplify matters and tend to eliminate thousands of long and 
weary theoretical disquisitions against "State Socialism" which, 
after all, are nothmg more than repetitions of things that have 
been said ten thousand times before. TJie inslinctive and correct 
FEAR of the capitalists generally AGAINST this policy consti- 
tutes the very best that can be said for it. The fear that it "leads 
to Socialism" is a perception that the capitalist gets much more 
quickly than the average Socialist can perceive the same truth. 

Thus we see plainly enough that rather than have even the 
beginning of "State Socialism" in the coal industry its bene- 
ficiaries would, for the time being at any rate, practically forego 
all their profit to avert this dreadful thing happening! 



16 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

It is well for Socialists to note these things and work with all 
their might on the fears of these exploiters, for most certainly 
the time is coming when we shall have to take up this construc- 
tive work and push it to the limit, with the advantage of knowing 
that it is in accord with the course of economic evolution and 
that even the capitalists and their government, much as they 
hate and fear it, will be forced by the inexorable logic of events 
to put it through just as were the British and other European 
capitalists. And there is a wide range of other matters such as 
food control, state ownership of railroads, steel and oil supply, 
etc., in the same general line. Perhaps when we get some part of 
our attention released from the opposition to conscription, which 
now almost wholly occupies it, we can devote part of our energy 
at least to the pushing of this particular line of effort. Sooner 
or later we will have to do it anyhow, and the undisguised fear 
of the capitalists as manifested by these coal mine owners is 
the very best warrant that we can have that it is well worth 
while.^ [My italics.] 

According to the above editorial, capitalists recog- 
nize State Socialism as a menace to the principle of 
their ownership. Despite the fact that Socialists 
also fear State Socialism, nevertheless a clarion call 
to action is sounded by Wanhope, to throw them- 
selves into the fight for State Socialism . . . "and 
work with all their might on the fears of these 
exploiters, for most certainly the time is coming 
when we shall have to take up this constructive work 
and push it to the limit. ..." 

There, fellow Socialists, you have Wanhope's 
word for it that notwithstanding what he may have 
written before, Socialists should fight for State So- 
cialism because the capitalist class is opposed -to it. 

1 New York Call, June 28, 1917. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 17 

But suppose you didn't want to work for State 
Socialism and still wished to be considered a "scien- 
tific Socialist," to whom could you turn for support 
of your scientific Socialist position? Why, to Wan- 
hope, of course, for he tells us^ that "State So- 
cialism" or "State Capitalism," is not a function of 
the working class. It is a capitalist class function 
instead, the function of the Capitalist State. The 
workers anywhere never did or ever will establish State 
Socialism. (My italics.) 

And there you are. 

In order to indicate how consistently inconsistent 
Wanhope can be we shall quote him again: 

In former experiments with single items of municipal owner- 
ship iu American cities it became a custom with the politicians 
to hamper the work of the municipal-owned utihty with the 
object of discrediting the policy in the eyes of the people and 
inculcating the "it won't work" conclusion. Many small ex- 
periments were thereby brought to naught and the utility 
reverted again to private ownership. 

A. B. Garretson, of the Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen, now 
makes the same charge concerning the railroads under federal 
control. The previous controllers, he insists, are trying to queer 
the experiment and declares that word has been passed down the 
line to pile up all possible overtime. . . . 

Mr. Garretson further states that for the first time in history 
big engines are allowed to freeze and "go dead," that train 
despatchers are playing the role of train delayers and crews 
have been held on side tracks with the deliberate purpose of 
pihng up overtime. He adds that under this insidious form of 
sabotage great transportation systems are suddenly breaking 
down through this deliberate program of delay and inefficiency, 

I New York Call, February 7, 1918. 



18 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

and in attempting to fix the responsibility he hints that it is to 
be sought in New York in four banks. 

Here are charges that are certainly worth looldng into. It is 
not as if this kind of thing had not happened before on a smaller 
scale, but the principle is the same. This, if true, is a case of 
sabotage on an immense scale and in the most deadly form by 
the capitalists and exposed arid fought against by the workers. 
The people who are doing it, the power behind the four banks, if 
Mr. Garretson's suspicions are allowed, are all patriots of the 
deepest dye. But with them it is not "If Germany wins nothing 
else matters," but '^ If the railroads are taken from us nothing else 
matters." 

The damage that such scoundrels can do is a million times 
greater than that of all the alien enemies in the country com- 
bined. And as Garretson is an experienced railroad man and one 
not given to fabricating rumors, there should not be a moment's 
delay in looking into it, as it places the entire national existence 
in deadly peril. 

It is not reassuring to contemplate millions of people in New 
York and other great cities freezing to death like the great 
engines on the tracks, because the transportation of fuel is de- 
liberately held up to inculcate the idea that the Government 
cannot possibly ruu the roads. 

We have no hope that the people of the great cities can be 
aroused from their semi-frozen torpid state of both body and 
mind to do anything much in the matter. The mass of the 
population of this city appears to be hopeless, caring nothing 
much whether there is coal for the Winter or ice for the Summer; 
people who are not used to looking ahead, as all people who live 
from hand to mouth naturally tend to be.^ . . . [My italics.] 

I suspect that Comrade Wanhope is responsible for 
both editorials. In the first, State SociaUsm is a 
capitalist class function and is not a function of the 
working class. In the second the capitaUst class is 

* New York Call, February 7, 1918^ 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 19 

resorting to sabotage on a national scale in order to 
prevent State Socialism, for the capitalists say that ''if 
the railroads are taken from us, nothing else matters." 

In the second editorial State Socialism *'is exposed 
and fought against by the icorking7?ien/' at which 
Wanhope seems very happy. For "the damage that 
such scoundrels (capitalists) can do (in their effort 
to discourage State Socialism) is a million times 
greater than that of all the alien enemies in the 
country combined ... as it places the entire national 
existence in deadly peril." Therefore, the second 
editorial applauds the workers and urges them on 
to do what the first editorial solemnly told them *4s 
not a function of the working class." 

Rather confusing, is it not? We think so, and we 
are quite sure the reader thinks so. But strangest of 
all, Wanhope thinks so too. For, we find the follow- 
ing editorial on "Confusion About State Socialism": 

There seems to be a very large number of avowed Socialists to 
wliom the actual progress of the world in the direction of So- 
ciaUsm appears to be a sealed book; many who appear utterly 
oblivious of the fact that "State SociaUsm," as it is called, is the 
gateway through which society must inexorably travel to 
democratic Socialism. For them the great Socialist scholars, 
thinkers and publicists have written in vain. And for them the 
enormous changes that the war has already made in capitalist 
property relations mean nothing, indicate nothing, except per- 
haps a more intensified and longer continued slavery for the 
proletariat. The}'- are not even "wise after the event." 

We print in to-day's issue such a communication, showing 
as it does the complete confusion that exists in the minds of many 
Socialists concerning this matter. 

We ask our readers to note the extraordinary contradictions 



20 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

that run through it from the very beginning. First we are told 
that all our readers agree with us as to the significance of na- 
tionalization of railroads to the fulfillment of Socialism, and this 
is immediately followed by the assertion that State Capitalism 
is our most powerful foe! That Government ownership of rail- 
roads is no more Socialistic than the growth of the trusts. It 
would no doubt surprise this correspondent to hear that prac- 
tically all well-informed Socialists do regard the growth of 
trusts as distinctly Socialistic; that they are certain indications 
of Socialism in the future, not only Socialists, but many capital- 
ists, have long perceived. That this outlook should still exist is 
certainly a reflection on the manner in which Socialist economics 
have been taught. It can hardly be contended that the pupils 
are congenitally ignorant, but for some reason — 'probably a fault 
of the teaching — the actual Socialist view of "State Socialism" 
has not been clearly conveyed to them. ... "It may very pos- 
sibly be that there is yet a preponderance of Utopian ingredients in 
our Socialist thinking, an assumption that everything that is done 
to further Socialism miist be consciously and deliberately done by 
an enlightened working class and a complete ignoring of the infinitely 
greater fact of the evolutionary process, unconsciously initiated and 
carried through by the capitalist state itself, a process of which the 
ultimate ends and even the indications are hardly seen by cap- 
italist statesmen. We have been perhaps so obsessed with the idea 
that we Socialists were ever, and always must be, the sole factor that 
we have never been able to actually comprehend the importance of 
the evolutionary process in capitalist relations, always judging 
the act by the immediate intentions and objects of those who 
inaugurate it. Therefore, because apparently the State control 
of railroads guaranteed profits to the previous owners, that is 
the entire implication of the matter. It is a clever capitalist 
trick of no benefit to the workers, either immediately or in the 
future. It is this mode of thinking that no doubt gives rise to 
the fatuous criterion so often indulged in by Socialist agitators, 
"If this thing is for the benefit of the working class, I am for it; 
if not, I'm against it." The ridiculous assumption being that 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 21 

everything that happens from now witil the ultimate realization of 
Socialism must necessarily be for the benefit — that is the immediate 
benefit — of the working class. 

That this point of view is false and foolish needs no argument. 
Between now and the establishment of SociaHsm it is almost 
certain that most of the things that happen will not be for the 
immediate benefit of the working class and especially those things 
— like state control of railroads — that are inaugurated by cap- 
italist and not by working class interests. There is no primrose 
path to Socialism; on the contrary, it is altogether likely to be 
even a rockier road than that which we have already traveled, 
and there never was and never will be an intelligent Socialist 
who will contend that "State Socialism" is or was intended to 
be of any immediate benefit to the workers. But that does not 
in the least prevent it from being an indication of and a prelude 
to genuine democratic collectivism. . . . [My italics.] ^ 

Thus does Wanhope voice his indictment of the 
ignorance so general among Sociahsts. He reahzes 
apparently the paralyzing effect this ignorance has 
had on the practical achievements of the Socialist 
Party in this country. The situation is serious and 
gives him genuine concern. Now, who is responsible 
for this ignorance? Wanhope suggests that it is a 
fault of the teaching — a reflection on the manner in 
which Socialist economics have been taught. And 
Wanhope ought to know. He has been teaching 
Socialist economics for a great many years. He 
voices the views and teachings of the vast majority 
of the Socialist leaders and teachers. If, as he rightly 
says, there seems to be a very large number of avowed 
Socialists to whom the actual progress of the world 
in the direction of Socialism appears to be a sealed 

1 New York Call, January 2, 1918. 



22 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

book, this glaring ignorance is not congenital, but 
a striking reflection of the scientific Socialist econom- 
ics that have been drummed into them. As Wan- 
hope himself admits, "a, preponderance of Utopian 
ingredients in our SociaHst thinking" is the logical 
result of a preponderance of Utopian teaching, 
despite that scientific label. 

The one important lesson Wanhope seeks to send 
home to Hapgood is that everything that is done to 
further Socialism must be consciously and deliber- 
ately done by an enlightened working class. This 
fundamental position he completely repudiates and 
characterizes as Utopian in his "Confusion About 
State Sociahsm." This editorial goes much further. 
It turns upside down nearly every argument ad- 
vanced as a lesson to Hapgood. 

Nowhere, to our knowledge, has any other So- 
cialist leader uttered a criticism of Wanhope's scien- 
tific lesson to Hapgood. He encountei-ed criticism 
only when, in his series of contradictions, he for the 
moment repudiated that lesson. That is the point 
of which we must not lose sight, proving as it does 
that the Hapgood lesson was based on the accepted 
principles, policy and tactics of the American So- 
cialist Party. 

Our original question : Do social reforms and State 
Socialism represent a loss to the capitalist class and 
a gain for the exploited, still remains unanswered. 
Wanhope's series of explanations need to be ex- 
plained. We must, therefore, look elsewhere for the 
answer to our query. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 23 

Hillquit offers an answer which has at least the 
merit of being definite. He tells us : ''As the worldng 
class movement grows in strength, intelligence and 
determination, the ruling classes are forced to make 
concessions to it, either by way of granting or fore- 
stalling its demands. This is the secret of the recent 
reaction against the sacred laissez-faire principle of 
modern law, and the source of all 'social legislation' 
of the last few years." ^ Hillquit therefore agrees 
with the stand taken by Wanhope in his reply to 
Hapgood that reforms represent a loss to the capital- 
ist class and a gain for the workers. These conces- 
sions are forced from the ruling class by the growth, 
intelligence and determination of the working class. 
If this be the secret of the recent reaction against the 
laissez-faire principle, where are we to look for the 
secret which will explain the reforms to which our 
attention is called by Karl Marx? Marx tells us of 
"the physical and moral regeneration" of the textile 
workers of Lancashire through the factory law of 
1847, which "struck the feeblest eye." 

As a Marxian scholar, Karl Kautsky ranks at 
least as the equal of Wanhope or Hillquit. Does he 
agree with their interpretation as to the significance 
of a reform measure? Does he believe that social 
reforms represent a loss to the ruling class and are 
granted only as a means of forestalling greater de- 
mands? It does not appear so. On the contrary, 
he believes that "a social reform can very well be 
in accord with the interest of the ruling class. It 




Socialism in Theory and Practice, Hillquit. 



24 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

may for the moment leave their social domination 
untouched, or under certain circumstances can even 
strengthen itJ' ^ (My italics.) 

As the significance of social reform seems to be 
enshrouded in mystery and has aroused considerable 
difference of opinion, it may prove of benefit to briefly 
review some of the more important reforms enacted 
within the past fifty years and see if we cannot get 
at their true explanation. 

To give a history of each act lies outside of the 
scope of this study. A general classification and the 
history of a few of the most important will amply 
serve our immediate purpose. 

The list includes regulation of child labor, regula- 
tion of the labor of women, reduction of the hours of 
labor, protection against dangerous machinery, 
liability of employers for injury to their employees, 
workmen's health insurance, public health service, 
municipal baths, municipal markets, the free school 
system, free hospitals, sanatoria, etc., etc. 

The economic, or State Socialist program, consists 
of national ownership of railroads, telegraphs, tele- 
phones, mines, municipal railways, gas, water and 
electric service, housing, regulation of food prices, 
distribution of food, etc. 

This is not offered as a complete Hst, neither is it 
claimed that all of these have been adopted in every 
country. 

In taking as an instance the history of the public 
\% school system we learn that ''Nearly the whole 

* Social RevoliUion, p. 10. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 25 

industry of education has, within a century, passed 
from being, for the most part, a profit-making ven- 
ture of the individual capitalist schoolmasters, into 
a service almost entirely conducted not for profit, 
but for use. . . . The development of the enterprise 
as a Government service has, during the past thirty 
years, alike in initiative and inventiveness, in diver- 
sity and adaptiveness to individual needs, surpassed 
all past experience and possible expectation."^ 

When the suggestion was first made that society 
assume the cost of and responsibihty for the educa- 
tion of the children of the masses, it aroused the 
bitterest opposition from the capitalist class. It was 
class legislation and paternalism, said they. Remov- 
ing the rightful responsibility from the parents would 
tend to make them shiftless, lazy and lead to pauper- 
ization; and the State had no right to use the tax- 
payers' funds for the encouragement of irrespon- 
sibihty, etc., etc. 

Time brought with it a radical change of attitude 
on the part of the capitalist class. Experience proved 
that the taxpayers gained nothing by opposing the 
use of their funds for free public education. Coping 
with the natural consequences of ignorance called 
for expenditures even greater than the estimated cost 
of free public education. Ignorance brought with it 
a train of evils such as crime, vice, disease, vagrancy, 
etc., and capitahst society, for its own protection, 
was compelled to assume the burden of providing 

^ Fabian Research Department of England, quoted by Harry 
Laidler in Public Ownership Throughout the World. 



26 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

various institutions for the proper handling of these 
problems. Not only was there no saving for the 
taxpayer, but industry, too, was compelled to pay 
the penalty of ignorance. As ignorant children grew 
into manhood, they proved useless as workers, ex- 
cept at the most unskilled kind of labor. 

These practical experiences with ignorance accom- 
plished more with the capitalist class than did years 
of agitation based on ethical grounds. 

Education has been sociahzed in response to the 
needs of tlie capitalist system. 

Next to education, no field reflects pubhc concern 
to a greater degree than does Pubhc Health. Every 
city in the United States has its Health Board, co- 
ordinating with State Health Boards and Federal 
Health Service. 

Quarantine against contagious diseases, control of 
sanitation, sanitary inspection of food supply, in- 
spection of schools, medical examination of school 
children, which led to the introduction of school 
clinics, school nurses, open-air schools and, in some 
cases, even school lunches. All these are outstand- 
ing examples of social interest in public health. 

Scientific research upon a national and interna- 
tional scale forms a part of the public health activities 
of every modern nation. The pubhc is protected 
against patent medicines and food preservatives 
detrimental to health. 

Educational activities, ever broadening in their 
scope, aim to bring enlightenment on all phases of 
health protection. Infant care, infant feeding, child 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 27 

hygiene, all aim at a high standard of health and 
prevention of disease. 

What is the explanation for this degree of social 
interest in public health? The outbreak of epi- 
demics usually gave the impetus to the movement for 
the creation of public health institutions. Epidemics 
are no respecters of classes. While they may have 
their inception in the slums, the limit of their opera- 
tions is not easily controlled, and the capitalist class 
could not count upon immunity without protecting 
society as a whole. But that was not the sole con- 
sideration. As in the case of education, the health 
of the masses became a capitalist concern, for only 
a healthy working class can render the efficient 
service demanded by modern industry. 

Capitalist society, therefore, was compelled to 
undertake the socialization of public health in re- 
sponse to the needs of the capitalist class. 

Were we to trace the history of any other of the 
long list of reforms enacted in the past fifty years, 
we would invariably find that the same motive 
prompted its enactment. Whatever may be the 
nature of the reforms, whether social, industrial or 
economic, they were adopted by capitalist govern- 
ments not through fear of an aroused working class, 
but because they were in line with the interests of 
capitalist society. 

A reform can be considered in the nature of a con- 
cession only when it can be shown that it threatens 
exploitation at the point of production. Have the 
reforms thus far enacted brought about an appre- 



28 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

ciable reduction in the rate of surplus value falling 
to the share of the owners of the means of produc- 
tion? No, they have not. Quite the contrary, a 
promise of an increase in profits constituted one of 
the principal arguments in the agitation for these 
reforms. Experience has amply justified this line of 
argument. Instead of reducing the rate of exploita- 
tion, social and industrial reforms have actually 
brought about a tremendous increase in the rate of 
surplus value. The experience of German capitalism 
is a striking proof of this assertion. No nation has 
as yet matched Germany's comprehensive program 
of social and industrial reform. Yet nowhere has 
the rate of exploitation been greater than in Ger- 
many. The fabulous profits reaUzed by the German 
industrial barons excited both envy and fear in the 
hearts of the industrial capitalists of other nations. 
The remarkable increase in efficiency shown by the 
German proletariat following the institution of social 
and industrial reforms put the German industrial 
capitalists in a position to undersell the capitalists of 
other nations and thus capture the market. The 
wealth amassed prior to the war by the German cap- 
itaUst class bears eloquent testimony to the efficacy 
of reforms as a means of multiplying production and 
increasing the rate of surplus value. 

It was not to be expected, however, that the in- 
dustrial capitalists of other nations would stand idly 
by and see their markets taken from them by the 
German capitalists. They must meet this competi- 
tion or go under. And how did they undertake to 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 29 

meet German competition? Why, by adopting Ger- 
many's own weapons — industrial and social reforms. 
The proletariat must be made more efficient, i.e., 
the rate of surplus value must be increased. In- 
creased production holds out the only hope of meet- 
ing German competition. This is the secret of the 
ambitious program of industrial and social reform 
that constitutes so conspicuous a part of the recent 
history of the English nation. 

The same motive lies behind the industrial and 
social reform programs in the United States and 
every other industrially developed country. In- 
creased efficiency multiplies production and there- 
fore increases the rate of exploitation, and this, of 
course, is the end and aim of the capitaUst class of 
every country. 

In examining the practical programs of the So- 
cialist parties of the world, what do we find? We 
find a series of demands identical with those cham- 
pioned by capitalist and autocratic governments, as 
well as by the most far-sighted capitalists! 

What possible relation can these reform planks 
have to the Marxian principles which form the 
theoretical basis of International Socialism? Marx- 
ian principles aim to serve the welfare of the pro- 
ducer by reducing and aboHshing exploitation, while 
the reforms that make up the practical program of 
the Sociahst parties have, wherever adopted, served 
the welfare of the exploiters by invariably increasing 
the rate of exploitation! 

Why do Socialists support a program which serves 



30 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

the interests of the exploiters? Certainly not on 
scientific grounds. They cannot point to Marxian 
principles in justification of their action. Why, 
then, did the Sociahsts, in their practical program, 
repudiate Marxian principles? Let us see if we can- 
not discover the underlying cause for this phe- 
nomenon. 



CHAPTER IV 

THE SOCIALISTS IN POLITICS 

Marx and Engels did not expect that Socialists 
should organize themselves into separate political 
parties. The Socialists were expected to support the 
working class in its battles with the exploiters. 

With the extension of suffrage to the masses the 
question of independent political action became a 
vital issue that gave rise to heated debates and 
bitter controversies among the leaders of the early 
Socialist movement. 

The uncompromising Marxians opposed Socialist 
participation in parhamentary elections. They 
could not see in what way such participation could 
possibly benefit the working class. It would have a 
most baneful effect upon the revolutionary character 
of the Socialist movement, said these leaders. It 
would lower the morale of the revolutionary prole- 
tariat. It would have a tendency to weaken revolu- 
tionary opposition to capitalist governments and the 
capitalist class and divert attention from the true 
purpose of Socialist activity — participation in the 
economic struggle and organization and education 
of the masses. WTien the majority of the masses 
have been won over to Socialism, argued the leaders, 



32 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

times will be ripe for the social revolution and not 
for parliamentary elections. 

In opposition to this uncompromising stand, it 
was argued that electoral campaigns offer unusual 
opportunities for SociaHst propaganda among the 
masses. An elected SociaHst representative would 
be in a most advantageous position to bring the 
SociaHst principles to the attention of the entire 
nation. As it is the aim of SociaHsm to transform 
the existing state into the SociaHst State, the experi- 
ence attained through parliamentary participation 
would prove of invaluable benefit to the SociaHst 
cause. 

As years rolled by and the SociaHsts increased 
their numbers, the rank and file became more and 
more insistent that Socialists enter the field of prac- 
tical politics. To confine their activities to the 
yearly repetition of the statements contained in the 
Communist Manifesto, that the capitaHst system has 
outworn its usefulness and must be abolished, was 
plausible for a few years. But as the capitalist 
system refused to be aboHshed, the SociaHsts under 
penalty of losing their hold on the masses were com- 
pelled to enter the domain of practical politics. 

"These, then," says HiUquit,^ "were the doubts 
and questions, the pros and cons, which met the 
SociaHsts at the threshold of their political career, 
and w^hile the leaders were discussing the theoretical 
aspects of the problem, the masses, as usual in prac- 
tical problems, solved it and, as usual, solved it 

^ Socialism in Theory and Practice, p. 174 (italics mine). 



TH^ SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 33 

right. The SociaHsts went into poHtics yielding to the 
instincts of the masses rather than following the 
reasoned poHcies of their leaders." A rather star- 
tling admission of the utter lack of a scientific basis 
for the most momentous step undertaken by a move- 
ment that claims to be based on science! 

Once forced into politics, the Socialists were com- 
pelled to take an active part in electoral campaigns. 
Their first successes were the election of a number of 
representatives to the North German Diet. There 
now arose a new controversy among the leaders. 
What should be the character of the activities of our 
representatives, became the burning question. 

"My personal opinion," says Wilhelm Liebknecht, 
"was that our elected representatives should enter 
Parliament with a protest and withdraw immediately 
without, however, surrendering their credentials. 
With this opinion, I remained in the minority; it 
was decided that the representatives of democracy 
could utilize every opportunity they might deem 
appropriate in order to emphasize in the 'Diet' 
their attitude of negation and protest, but that they 
should keep aloof from all practical parliamentary 
proceedings." ^ 

In these words does the great pioneer and leader 
inform us that, though the party had entered politics 
and elected representatives, the representatives 
were expected to remain true to the principles upon 
which the party was based and maintain a position 
of negation and protest and not to participate in 

^Socialism inThcory and Practice, Hillquit, pp. 181-2 (my italics). 



34 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

practical proceedings. The elected officials repre- 
sented a revolutionary party and not a party of 
reform; therefore their sole function was one of 
negation and protest. 

''These negative tactics," says Hillquit, ''were 
steadfastly adhered to during the first two sessions of 
the North German Diet, but already the next ses- 
sion ^\dtnessed a spontaneous departure from the rigid 
rule, when several Socialist deputies took the floor 
in the first parliamentary discussion on the subject 
of governmental labor regulation. And the Socialist 
tactics of parliamentary abstinence have since 
gradually hut definitely given way to the policy of 
watchful and energetic parUamentary activity."* 
In other words, the Socialist representatives remained 
true to their Socialist principles for two sessions only, 
repudiating them thereafter and actively participat- 
ing in the framing of practical reforms. 

Such is the history of Socialist participation in 
practical politics and such is the genesis of the 
Socialist practical program of reform. Not only has 
this program no relation whatever to Marxian prin- 
ciples, but constitutes a complete renunciation of 
those principles. 

The Sociahst parties of the world accept Marxian 
principles in theory, but repudiate them in practice. 

In this fundamental contradiction was laid the 
foundation for all Party strife. No sooner did the 
Sociahsts enter politics when differences arose. 
With the adoption of a practical program of reform 

1 Socialism in Theory and Practice, p. 182 (my italics). 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 35 

these differences widened into chasms, irrevocably 
separating the membership of the parties into two 
main camps: (1) the consistent Marxians who be- 
lieve in a practical program based upon Marxian 
principles, which could only mean revolutionary 
agitation, education, organization and the economic 
conflict; and (2) the opposing camp, while adhering 
to ]\Iarxian princi])les in theory, adopted a positive 
program which could find no justification in Marxian 
principles, but which, in fact, constituted a repudia- 
tion of his principles. 

To speak of these differences as differences of 
opinion over policy and tactics is in itself a betrayal 
of the inability on the part of either camp to under- 
stand the true significance of the practical program 
which one side defends and the other opposes. Can 
it be said that the difference between the Bolsheviki 
and the Mensheviki is but a difference over policy 
and tactics? Is it a difference over policy and tac- 
tics that separates the Spartacides from the Majority 
Socialists? No, the cause lies much deeper. The 
Bolsheviki and the Spartacides know that the prac- 
tical program heretofore adopted by Socialists con- 
stitutes a repudiation of Marxian principles and for 
that reason the supporters of that program are to- 
day looked upon as traitors to Marxian, revolution- 
ary, scientific Socialism. 

This breach will never be overcome so long as So- 
cialists fail to recognize that the differences between 
them is one of principles and not merely over policy 
and tactics. Wlien this fact is fully recognized, it 



36 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

will then become the duty of either side to scientifi- 
cally convince the other wherein its principles are 
wi'ong. With this scientifically established, we will 
attain the desideratum for which we all so fervently 
pray — a united Socialist movement, comradely 
marching shoulder to shoulder toward the common 
goal; a happy, peaceful, world-wide brotherhood. 



CHAPTER V" 

THE PRACTICAL PROGRAM AND SOCIALIST GROWTH 

The supporters of the practical program never 
made an attempt to defend their position on theo- 
retical grounds for the very good and sufficient reason 
that it could not be done. To defend the practical 
program on the ground of Marxian theory was to 
invite disaster ; hence, no one has been so rash as to 
make the attempt. 

Nevertheless, the program was defended and suc- 
cessfully too, not however on theoretical but in- 
tensely practical grounds. The principal defense 
offered was the marvelous growth in membership 
and vote consequent upon the adoption of the prac- 
tical program. When it came to a discussion of the 
lapse from theory represented by the practical pro- 
gram, the revolutionary Marxians were in a position 
to make things mighty uncomfortable for the so- 
called opportunists or Right wingers. But when it 
came to a consideration of the effect the practical 
program had on the growth of the parties, ah ! there 
is where the opportunists had their opportunity to 
hit back without fear of a comeback. And how they 
did smite! And how uncomfortable they made 
things for the uncompromising Marxians. Success 



38 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

is always an unanswerable argument. Hillquit 
has so well summarized the marvelous benefits that 
accrued to the Socialist movement from its partici- 
pation in practical politics that we cannot do better 
than quote him in full on this point: 

"Whatever might have been the significance of Socialist 
pontics as a factor in securing immediate social reforms," says 
Hillquit, "it certainly has been of transcendent importance in 
the creation of the powerful organizations of Socialism. It was 
the practical political battles of Socialism, the concrete attacks on 
the enemy, the definite issues and war cries, the common vic- 
tories and defeats that attracted multitudes of European work- 
ingmen, and it is these that are beginning to attract the mass of 
American workingmcn to the banner of Socialism. If the number 
of Socialist voters of the world has gro\ATi from about 30,000 
in 1867 to almost 10,000,000 in 1908; if the Socialists have be- 
come a recognized factor in the public life of twenty-five modern 
nations, having representation in the parliaments and adminis- 
trative organs in sixteen of them ; if the Socialists have elaborated 
a clear, detailed and sober program of social transformation, and 
developed in their ranks thousands of thinkers, orators, states- 
men, organizers and leaders, the practical politics of the modern 
Socialist parties is largely responsible for these splendid results. 
Without the unifying and propelling force of political activity, 
the Socicdist movement to-day might not have advanced much be- 
yond the stage of purely literary significance of the early Socialist 
schools or beyond that of a number of incoherent sects." ^ 

Thus does Hillquit, in a spirit of true pride, sum- 
marize the remarkable results that accrued to the 
Socialist parties consequent upon their empiric de- 
cision to participate in practical politics. Hillquit's 
closing statement is extremely interesting and sig- 

1 Socialism in Theory and Practice, pp. 203-4 (my italics). 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 39 

nificant. If the Socialists had not entered practical 
politics "they would not have advanced much be- 
yond the stage of a number of incoherent sects." 
The success, therefore, of the scientific Socialist 
movement was not due to its scientific principles, 
but to an empirical, practical program! Scientific 
Socialists could succeed only as they repudiated 
scientific Socialism! What a ''scientific" situation! 

Hillquit is unquestionably right. In every country 
there is to be found either more than one Socialist 
Party or one, two and even three wings to the same 
party. Which constitutes the "incoherent sect"? 
Invariably it is the one most determined on consist- 
ent adherence to the uncompromising revolutionary 
Marxian principles. 

In this country we have the Socialist Labor Party 
and the Socialist Party. The former is consistently 
Marxian and is an "incoherent sect" in consequence. 
The Socialist Party, on the other hand, runs its 
campaigns on some such issue as cheaper milk^ and 
creates a furore! An investigation of the situation 
in any other country will disclose the same phe- 
nomenon. 

What is the explanation for this extraordinary 
situation? Marxian principles leave no room for 
doubt as to whose interests they aim to serve. 
Those parties that take their stand squarely on 
Mai-xian principles serve but one master, the pro- 
ducers, as against their exploiters. Why do not the 
workers flock to the support of the consistent Marx- 

• Hillquit Mayoralty Campaign, 1917. 



40 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

ian parties? WTiy do they prefer to support the 
parties that compromise their Marxian principles 
and make an issue of reforms which have no possible 
bearing on exploitation at the point of production 
except actually to increase it? 

We have shown that reforms have been initiated 
by capitalist governments because they have proved 
a blessing to the owners of the means of production. 
They have made for labor efficiency and thus in- 
creased the rate of exploitation. Why, then, do the 
exploited support Socialist parties that go back on 
their principles and, instead, champion reforms which 
serve the interests of the exploiters? Let us see if 
we cannot probe this mystery to the bottom. 

The owners of the tools of production must have 
a working class developed to the highest possible 
point of efficiency. Experience has amply demon- 
strated that profits obtained at the expense of a 
physically undermined and mentally ignorant work- 
ing class are automatically limited, for they have a 
tendency to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. 
Autocratic Germany has proved to the satisfaction 
of international capitalism that a healthy, educated 
working class is capable of yielding profits undreamed 
of heretofore. In an effort to tap this new source of 
profits, other capitalist governments are following 
Germany's example and are introducing reforms 
that are calculated to develop a healthy, educated 
working class. 

So we see the capitahst governments of England 
and the United States (Germany's chief rivals) 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 41 

introducing industrial and social reforms that aim 
to regulate the hours of labor, conditions of labor, 
protection of child labor, regulation of the labor of 
women, liability insurance, health insurance, free 
public and high school education, free libraries, free 
baths, free hospitals, etc., etc. 

Should labor oppose these reforms? That is an 
idle question. The fact is, the masses lined up behind 
the capitalist governments, in a demand for the im- 
mediate enactment of these reforms. It appears 
that capital and labor have some interests in common 
after all! Labor had its choice. The class struggle 
at the point of production dictated that labor should 
oppose these reforms because they made for an in- 
creased ratio of exploitation. But their interests as 
consumers, as social beings, dictated support to the 
reform measures. We know that it was the dictates 
of the latter that prevailed. Reforms improve the 
social status of the masses and for that reason com- 
mand their support. 

The masses have progressed and progressed 
rapidly, but the gains come to them not as pro- 
ducers, but as consumers, as social beings. Prac- 
tically the entire list of industrial and social reforms 
aim to serve the masses in their capacity as con- 
sumers and social beings. 



CHAPTER VI 

ARE SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES SCIENTIFIC? 

Socialists claim that of all the groups opposed 
to the capitalist system they alone are scientific. 
What is the basis for this sweeping claim? Socialist 
principles, we are told, are based on the science and 
laws of Social Evolution. A study of the processes 
of Social Evolution of the past seventy-five years 
discloses the remarkable fact that there is a con- 
flict between Socialist principles and Social Evolution. 
Socialist principles concern themselves with the wel- 
fare of the producer, whereas Social Evolution con- 
cerns itself with the welfare of the consumer. So- 
cialist principles concern themselves with productive 
capital while Social Evolution concerns itself with 
consumable wealth. Socialist principles concern 
themselves with exploitation at the point of produc- 
tion, while Social Evolution concerns itself with 
exploitation at the point of consumption. Socialist 
principles concern themselves with the means of 
production of social wealth. Social Evolution con- 
cerns itself with the distribution of social wealth. 
Socialist principles are based on the conflict of in- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 43 

terest between the o wners of the means of produc- 
tion and the workers, wh ereas Social Evolution 
operat es in response to their c oininon interests. 

The class struggle at~ the point of production 
appears to be entirely ignored by Social Evolution. 

How is it possible to make scientific claims for 
principles that conflict with Social Evolution? It 
becomes evident that inasmuch as Socialist prin- 
ciples are not based upon, but conflict with, Social 
Evolution, they cannot be scientific and therefore 
must be Utopian. 

How is it with the practical program of the Inter- 
national Socialist movement? What relation does it 
bear to Social Evolution? We have seen that the 
practical program is not based on Socialist theoretical 
principles, but was arrived at empirically as a po- 
htical expediency, or, as Hillquit puts it, "Not as 
the result of the reasoned policy of the leaders, but 
yielding to the instinct of the masses." It is admitted 
that the phenomenal growth of the International 
Socialist movement is entirely due to this step. It 
was forced upon the Socialists by the masses and new 
adherents by the millions were attracted by it. Con- 
trary to the theoretical principles, this practical pro- 
gram of reform concerns itself with the masses' 
welfare as consumers, aiming to further their social 
interests, and it is because these interests are para- 
mount to the workers that they flock to the Party 
making them the issue. Wherever there are two 
Socialist parties in the field it is not the one that 
makes an issue of their interests as producers that 



44 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

attracts the support of the masses, but the one that 
champions their interests as consumers. 

Clearly it is the practical program so empirically 
arrived at by a ''scientific" movement that conforms 
to the operations of Social Evolution. 

This conflict between theory and practice, this 
failure to understand which is scientific, constitutes 
the supreme tragedy of Socialism. 

Socialists hold fast to the view that the principles 
which concern themselves with the welfare of the 
producer and with productive capital are scientific; 
i.e., are based upon the laws of Social Evolution. 
In practice, however, they repudiate these prin- 
ciples and present a program based upon the welfare 
of the consumer and the distribution of consumable 
wealth. 

A recent and striking illustration of the conflict 
between SociaUst theory and practice is to be had 
in the remarkable mayoralty campaign of New 
York City in 1917. Socialists will not soon forget 
the ecstatic enthusiasm which was the outstanding 
feature of that unprecedented campaign. Let us 
see what Hillquit made Socialism stand for. 

In an interview ^ Hillquit offered a program which 
he pledged himself to adopt and which included 
medical care of poor mothers before and after child- 
birth, municipal nurseries, better schools, more 
schools and meals supphed by the city to poor 
children. 

Wlien asked to answer a list of questions submitted 

1 New York World, October 6, 1917. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 45 

by a Labor Food Conference to each candidate, 
Ilillquit replied in no uncertain terms. His most 
comprehensive answer was: 

If elected, I would have the city enter the food market as far 
as necessary to eliminate profiteering and waste and reduce 
prices to a minimum whenever possible. I would do this also in 
the case of fuel. If necessary, I would have the city buy coal 
direct from the mines and sell it to the people without profit. 
I would have the city buy milk from the farmers and sell it to 
the people without profit. 

Now, the above is a good illustration of Socialist 
practical concern in the welfare of the masses as 
consumers. 

Follo^\'ing the election, Hillquit was invited to 
address the State Woman Suffrage Party. Hillquit 
is reported^ as having laid down the fundamental 
proposition that "Socialism is not concerned with con- 
surnable wealth, hut only with productive capitaV 

How is it possible to reconcile this statement with 
his platform during the campaign? Is it possible 
that Socialists are only interested in consumable 
wealth during election time, and only for the purpose 
of vote-catching? In laying down the proposition 
that Socialism is not concerned with consumable 
wealth, but only \\'ith productive capital, Hillquit 
adhered strictly to the theoretical principles upon 
which the party is based, but how much of a furore 
would he have created had he made his campaign on 
those principles? It wall not do to say that as Mayor 
of New York City, Hillquit could not promise much 

* New York Call, January 9, 1918 (my italics). 



46 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

in the way of concerning himself with productive 
capital. Hillquit waged his campaign not only on 
local, but national and even international issues. 

In a desire to attract strong political support, 
Socialist parties feel intuitively that they must 
suspend their theoretical principles and wage their 
campaign not upon the class struggle at the point of 
production, but upon issues that concern the great 
mass of the people as citizens and consumers. 

Socialists are so busy studying the contradictions 
of capitalism that they have no time to observe their 
own. They tell us that a program of immediate 
demands is not only useless, hut it is criminal, then 
they immediately proceed to frame immediate 
demand planks. Ask a Sociahst, why do capitalist 
governments grant reforms and his answer will al- 
ways be: "Because they are frightened by the 
gro\ving Sociahst vote." 

But what does capitalism lose through granting 
these reforms? How is this loss to be translated in 
terms of Surplus Value and the class struggle? It is 
all shrouded in deep mystery. But whether it can 
be explained or not, reforms though not demanded 
on grounds of Socialist principles must be conces- 
sions from the capitahst class, for the formula states 
that labor and capital can have no interests in 
common. Other factions, however, insist that re- 
forms are but a capitalist trick to wean the Socialists 
away from the real revolutionary path. 

Where must we look for the cause of this endless 
confusion and these innumerable contradictions? 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 47 

Is it due to a faulty interpretation of Marxian prin- 
ciples? Is it due to a faulty application of 
Marxian principles, or is it with the Marxian prin- 
ciples themselves that there is something funda- 
mentally wrong? We cannot hope to find an answer 
to questions so far-reaching in their nature except 
through an exhaustive study of the theoretical prin- 
ciples formulated by IMarx and Engels, the founders 
of scientific Socialism. This, then, is the task that 
is set before us. 
4 



CHAPTER VII 

Makxian Scientific Socialism 

These two gi'eat discoveries — the materialistic conception of 
history and the revelation of the secret of capitahstic production 
through surplus value — we owe to Marx. With these discoveries 
Socialism became a science. . . . 

From that time forward Socialism was no longer an accidental 
discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary out- 
come of the struggle between two historically developed classes, 
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. — Fredrich Engels, Social- 
ism, Utopian and Scientific. 

Socialism as a scheme calculated to improve 
the material conditions of human society was rejected 
//^ by Marx as Utopian. History had taught him that 

social systems cannot be changed at will. He had 
discovered that social systems are but a reflex of 
their economic foundation, and therefore cannot be 
changed except as there has been a change in the 
economic foundation. 

The class struggle is the outstanding phenomenon 
-, of all past history, and is always the product of the 
economic conditions of a given epoch. 

The class war in the present capitahst system of 
society arises from the fact that Surplus Value is 
extracted from labor by the owners of the means of 
production. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 49 

What is the usual outcome of this class struggle 
which has raged in all history? Marx tells us ^ that 
the fight each time ended either in a revolutionary 
reconstitution of society-at-large or in the common 
ruin of the contending classes. Assuming that the class 
struggle in a given epoch did not end in the common 
ruin of the contending classes, but brought about a 
revolutionary reconstitution of society, how was this 
accomplished? Was it a sudden, quick change? 
Was it a slow, drawn-out, continuous process, or 
was it an intermittent process? Marx does not 
leave us in doubt as to his answer when he says: 

At a certain stage in their development the material productive 
forces of society come into opposition with the existing conditions 
of production or what is only a legal expression for it, with the 
relations of property within which they have hitherto moved. 
From forms of development of the forces of production these 
relations change into fetters. Then enters an epoch of social 
revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the 
whole gigantic superstructure (the legal and political organiza- 
tions to which certain social forms of consciousness correspond) 
is more slowly or more quickly overthrown.^ 

Appljdng these general principles to the develop- 
ment of the bourgeoisie, Marx says: 

In the development of these (bourgeois) means of production 
and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society 
produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture 
and manufacturing industry; in one word, the feudal relations 
of property became no longer compatible with the already de- 
veloped productive forces; they became so many fetters. They 
had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.^ 

^ Communist Manifesto, p. 13. ' Ihid., p. 20. 

' Quoted by E. Bernstein — Evolutionary Socialism, p. 8. 



50 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

In laying down his general principles and in citing 
a specific instance of their practical application, Marx 
left no room for the misinterpretation of his law of 
social change. He showed that social change is not 
a continuous but an intermittent process. At a 
certain stage in their development the material 
forces of society come into opposition with the ex- 
isting conditions of production. . . . Then enters an 
"epoch of social revolution." 

But what of the intervening time? What happens 
between the certain stage of one epoch and the ar- 
rival of the certain stage in the next epoch? Marx 
leaves us in the dark as to this. Apparently nothing 
of importance can happen, nothing of social sig- 
nificance. Society apparently leaps forward from 
certain stage to certain stage, the intervening time 
presumably being consumed in gathering itself for 
the next leap. 

That this was undoubtedly his view, a further quo- 
tation will amply confirm. ''With the change of the 
economic foundation," says Marx, "the whole 
gigantic superstructure is more slowly or more 
quickly overthrown." Now, what other meaning 
can the word foundation have than the entire basis 
or at least the greater portion of the basis, a change 
which obviously cannot be accomplished in a short 
interval of time. Yet even when the foundation 
has been changed the whole superstructure is only 
"more slowly or more quickly overthrown"; in 
other words, the change in the superstructure lags 
tardily behind the change in the economic founda- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 51 

tion. It must be evident that to Marx social change 
is not a continuous, but an intermittent process, and 
that the period intervening between the certain stage 
of economic development of one epoch and the 
certain stage of the next is not worthy of study, as it 
has no real social significance. 

Yet at another place we find him saying: 

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing 
the instruments of production and thereby the relations of pro- 
duction and with them the whole relations of society.' 

This statement is entirely at variance with his law 
of social progress as quoted above. It speaks of 
the process as continuous, with the inevitable change 
in the superstructure. To Marx the bourgeois 
epoch furnishes the exception which but proves his 
rule. 

Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted dis- 
turbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and 
agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. 
Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form 
was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all 
earher industrial classes.^ 

Thus does Marx prove his law that social progress 
is an intermittent process with nothing of social 
value occurring in the intervals. 

Now let us observe the workings of Marx's law of 
intermittent social progress and note the logic of its 
conclusions. The bourgeois modes of production 
and exchange were evolved in feudal society. What 
was the status of the exploited class, pending the 

1 Communist Manifesto, p. 17. 2 jn^^ ^^y italics). 



52 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

arrival of the ''certain stage" in the development of 
these means of production and exchange that would 
compel feudal society to ''burst asunder"? As has 
already been stated, for Marx this period was of 
little social significance. In developing his subject, 
however, he was compelled to comment upon the 
status of the exploited and note the tendency. He 
tells us, for instance, that "from the serfs of the 
middle ages sprang the chartered burghers of the 
earliest towns. From these burgesses the first ele- 
ments of the bourgeoisie were developed."^ 

This statement with the word sprang used in that 
sense, and the word developed, can convey but one 
meaning — a tendency to advance, to progress. 

Again: "Each step in the development of the bour- 
geoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political 
advance of that class." ^ There is no mistaking the 
meaning of that statement. 

It must be evident that even in the classic examples 
of Marx's law of intermittent social progress; those 
epochs in which "conservation of the old modes of 
production in unaltered form was the first condition 
of existence for all earlier industrial classes," the 
intervening periods showed a progressive upward 
tendency in the condition of the exploited. 

Now, let us study the position of the exploited in 
bourgeois society. IMarx tells us that bourgeois 
society is the exception to his law of social change; 
the law that social change can come only with a 
certain stage in the development of the means of 

^ Communist Manifesto, p. 13. * Ibid., p. 15. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 53 

production and exchange. But '^ bourgeois society 
cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the 
instruments of production and thereby the relations 
of production and with them the whole relations of 
society." 

How does this constant change affect the status of 
the exploited? In the earlier epochs change was 
synonymous with progress, with improvement, the 
only objection being its exasperatingly slow and 
intermittent character. But bourgeois society, being 
an exception in that constant change is its outstanding 
characteristic, does this characteristic redound to 
the advantage of the exploited by accelerating the 
rate of progress beyond anything experienced in 
previous epochs? That might be a logical deduction, 
but, according to Marx, illogic is the only logical 
thing about bourgeois society. Not only are we 
wrong in concluding that the rate of progress is 
greater in bourgeois society, but it is a mistake to 
believe that there is any progress at all. Not only is 
there no progress with the progress of industry, but 
actual retrogression. Marx also insists^ that in all 
previous epochs, including the feudal, development 
meant advance, but in bourgeois society the modern 
laborer, instead of rising with the progress of in- 
dustry, sinks deeper and deeper below the con- 
ditions of existence of his own class. 

Thus does Marx prove the folly of logic. Constant 
change as the exceptional and distinguishing feature 
of bourgeois society, not only does not bring with it 

* Communist Manifesto, p. 31. 



54 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

exceptional progress for the exploited, but actually 
makes for retrogression insofar as the status of the 
exploited is concerned. An exception to every ex- 
ception is, according to Marx, the outstanding 
characteristic of bourgeois society. Bourgeois so- 
ciety, like a crab, makes progress backwards. Bour- 
geois society refuses to respond to any of the laws 
that governed past history. It has broken away 
from all control, it creates its own social laws, it is a 
law unto itself. This is the only explanation Marx 
could offer for the maze of exceptions manifested by 
bourgeois society to the laws he had evolved. 

According to Marx's theory, progress can bring 
nothing but reaction and pauperism to the proleta- 
riat. To him this is an immutable law peculiar to 
bourgeois society. 

Such was Marx's understanding of the intervening 
period. Let us now turn to the period upon which 
Marx concentrated most of his analytical powers — 
the period of social revolution that entered with the 
arrival of a "certain stage in the development of 
the means of production and exchange." 

Marx laid do\vn as a universal law that ''at a cer- 
tain stage in their development the material produc- 
tive forces of society come into opposition with the 
existing conditions of production . . . from forms of 
development of the forces of production these rela- 
tions change into fetters and then enters an epoch 
of social revolution." 

Applying this law to bourgeois society, what would 
be the logical expectation? Would it not be natural 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 55 

to suppose that whatever might have been the cause 
of the freakish paradox which in bourgeois society 
made development mean degradation, when the stage 
of social revolution was at last reached, it would 
mean for the proletariat what social revolution al- 
ways has meant for the exploited — a stage of ac- 
celerated progress? But Marx quickly disillusions 
us. Not even at the stage of social revolution does 
bourgeois society come within the scope of his law. /) 

Yes, his was a universal law, but bourgeois society ' 
refuses to be governed by it! 

Let us compare the status of the exploited at the 
stage of social revolution in feudal society with that 
of bourgeois society. "We see, then, the means of 
production and of exchange on whose foundation the 
bourgeois built itself up were generated in feudal 
society. At a certain stage in the development of 
these means of production and of exchange, the 
conditions under which feudal society produced and 
exchanged, the feudal relations of property became 
no longer compatible with the already developed 
productive forces; they became so many fetters. 
They had to be burst asunder; they were burst 
asunder. Into their places stepped free competition, 
accompanied by a social and political constitution 
adopted to it and by the economical and political 
sway of the bourgeois class. "^ 

The rise, gro^\'th and final mastery of the bour- 
geoisie over the feudal system stands out as a classic 
example of the operation of Marx's law. Here we 

* Communist Manifesto, p. 20. 



56 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

have conveyed to us a picture of a final victory 
which is the cuhnination of the ever-increasing 
strength of the exploited with a corresponding 
weakening of the exploiting class. 

Compare this with the picture he paints of the 
condition of the proletariat at the same period of 
development of the productive forces that gives rise 
to an epoch of social revolution. For even when 
Marx wrote (1848), the epoch of social revolution 
had already been in operation for many a decade 
past. Did this epoch bring with it for the proletariat 
the changes that a similar epoch in feudal society 
brought to the bourgeoisie? Here is Marx's answer: 

Hitherto every form of society has been based, as we have 
already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed 
chxsses. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must 
be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish 
existence. The serf in the period of serfdom, raised himself to 
membership in the commune just as the petty bourgeois; under 
the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bour- 
geois. The modern laborer 07i the contrary, instead of rising with 
the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the con- 
ditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and 
pauperism de-\'elops more rapidly than population and wealth. 
And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any 
longer to be the ruling class in society and to impose its condi- 
tions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit 
to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its 
slave -within his slaverj^ because it cannot help letting him sink 
into such a state that it has to feed him instead of being fed by 
him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie; in other 
words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.^ 

^Cammunist Manifesto, p. 31 (my italics.) 



THE SOCIAL INTERlUlETAriON OF HISTORY 57 

Thus we see that while in all past history an epoch Z^ 
of social revolution, which entered as a result of the 
conflict of the new productive forces with the old 
conditions of production, was accompanied by a 
vast improvement in the condition of the exploited 
at the expense of the exploiters, the epoch of social 
revolution in bourgeois society arising also from a 
change in the mode of production is accompanied by 
the very opposite social phenomena: increasing 
strength of the bourgeoisie and the complete pauper- 
ization of those who are to overthrow the bour- 
geoisie, not through their increasing strength, but 
through their increasing misery will the exploited 
conquer the exploiters! 

The absurdity of this conclusion ought to be 
apparent to the most superficial thinker. ''The 
bourgeoisie is unfit to rule because it is incompetent 
to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, 
because it cannot help letting him sink into such a 
state that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by 
him." How can this situation be made the basis for 
a demand that the bourgeoisie be abolished? Is 
Marx seeking to protect the interests of a useless 
class? If Marx is right and economic evolution is 
going to ehminate the proletariat as a factor in pro- 
duction, therefore the proletariat will no longer 
feed the bourgeoisie — that is, it will no longer be 
exploited; then why adopt a reactionary measure? 
If evolution has brought about a condition which 
makes the bourgeoisie useful and the proletariat 
useless, then why turn back the hand of time? Be- 



58 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

sides, isn't the bourgeoisie rendering a useful service 
by feeding the useless proletariat? The situation is 
certainly puzzling. Hasn't the middle class— the 
small manufacturer, petty bourgeois, feudal lord, 
etc. — an equal if not greater justification for de- 
manding the abohtion of bourgeois rule? They at 
least have the prestige of having at one time been 
the ruhng class. They have a right to demand that 
bourgeois rule be abohshed and their own restored. 
Should Social Evolution, then, proceed in the in- 
terest of these opponents of the bourgeoisie? But 
let us go on with our study of IVIarx. 

''AH previous historical movements," says Marx, 
"were movements of minorities or in the interest of 
minorities." This is handed down by Marx as a 
law which has operated in all past history. Is this 
a universal law? Will future history also respond to 
this law? 

No, says Marx; what was the law in all past 
history will not be the law of future history. Future 
history will be so different that it must have laws 
that are different. ''The proletarian movement," 
says Marx, "is the self-conscious, independent 
movement of the unmense majority in the interest 
of the immense majority." Let us now follow 
Marx in his description of this new law, which is to 
operate in the interest of the inamense majority. 



In depicting the most general phases of the development of 
the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, 
raging within existing society up to the point where that war 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 59 

breaks out into open revolution and where the violent overthrow of 
the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.^ 

We find the same views expressed in the following 
language : 

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all 
the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a 
class, overthrow of the bourgeoisie supremacy, conquest of po- 
Uticul power by the proletariat.^ 

There is certainly nothing contradictory in these 
two statements, neither is there any ambiguity as 
to their meaning. Civil war between bourgeoisie 
and proletariat — revolution — violent overthrow of 
bourgeoisie — sway of the proletariat. But where in 
all this is to be found the ''immense majority" and 
Socialism? Is the sway of the proletariat Socialism? 
Did all the other proletarian parties seek to establish 
Socialism? What did they know about Socialism? 
Wasn't the Communist Manifesto the first presenta- 
tion of "scientific" Socialist principles? Or is "the 
formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow 
of bourgeoisie supremacy," synonymous with So- 
cialism? What choice have we but to accept this 
conclusion? But Marx had more to say on this 
point. Perhaps he wall help us out of our dilemma. 

He says: 

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the 
working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling 
class, to win the battle of democracy.^ 

* Communial Mnmfr.sto, p. 30 (my italics). ^ Ibid., p. 33. 

3 Ibid., p. 44. 



60 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

We might stop here to inquire in what way does 
the raising of the proletariat to the position of the ruling 
class constitute winning the battle of democracy? 
Is bourgeois class rule synonymous with democracy? 
Does class rule become ''democracy" when the 
proletariat is the ruling class? Now let us under- 
stand correctly just how Socialism will be brought 
about. 

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by 
degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instru- 
ments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the prole- 
tariat organized as the ruling class and to increase the total of 
productive forces as rapidly as possible. 

Of course, in the beginning this cannot be effected except 
by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property and on 
the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, 
therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, 
but which, in the course of the movements outstrip themselves, 
necessijtate further inroads upon the old social order and are 
unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of 
production.^ 

This statement is followed up with a series of social 
reform planks. 

Now where are we at? We are to have civil war, 
which is to break out into open revolution, violent 
overthrow of the bourgeoisie and supremacy of the 
proletariat. ''The first step in the revolution is to 
raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class." 

What mental picture does such a description 
project before us? Ci\dl wars and violent revolu- 
tions are no Sunday-school picnics. They bring 

^ Communist Manifesto, pp. 44-45 (my italics.) 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY Gl 

chaos, destruction, famine and ruthless butchery. 
Upon none do these fall with more crushing force 
than upon the proletariat. The ideahsm which will 
inspire the proletariat to sacrifice life in defense of 
a noble cause, demands that the prize be worthy of 
the sacrifice. The proletariat who, by revolution, 
seeks to overthrow the supremacy of the bour- 
geoisie, must be prepared not only to risk its own 
life, but must stand ready to spill the blood of 
members of its own class who may happen to wear 
the uniform of the State. 

Let us assume the revolution is on and at last is 
won. By paying the full price in anguish and blood, 
the proletariat has raised itself to the position of the 
ruling class. What is the reward? Sociahsm? The 
Co-operative Commonwealth? Not at all! The pro- 
letariat, according to Marx, will use its political 
supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the 
bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of produc- 
tion in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat 
organized as the ruhng class, etc., and then, and 
then — proceed to enact a series of social reform 
measures ! 

Although the State is now 'Hhe proletariat or- 
ganized as the ruling class, . . . Marx tells us these 
reforms ''are unavoidable as a means of entirely 
revolutionizing the mode of production." 

We commend these views to Lenine and Trotsky, 
who are trying to establish Socialism in Russia as 
the logical outgrowth of what? 

What is the nature of the reforms suggested by 



62 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

Marx? Why, most of them haven't the shghtest 
bearing on exploitation at the point of production, 
but concern themselves chiefly with the welfare of 
the workers as consumers, as social beings. 

''The proletariat," says Marx, ''will use its po- 
litical supremacy to wrest by degrees all capital 
from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of 
production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the prole- 
tariat organized as the ruling class." But why will 
the proletariat do this; why should the proletariat 
do this; because Marx would have it so? Is this the 
scientific basis for his conclusion? In what way 
would this method serve labor in its aim? INlarx has 
taught labor that its misery is due to the fact that it 
is exploited by the capitalist class at the point of 
production and labor is forced to submit to this 
exploitation because the capitalist class controls 
the means of production. It is this situation that is 
responsible for the class struggle, which can only 
come to an end through a proletarian revolution. 

But what is there in all this that would indicate 
that Socialism must follow the revolution? With 
the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, every evil 
for which it has been responsible disappears with it. 
Labor is now in control of the means of production. 
Exploitation at the point of production comes to an 
end. Surplus Value becomes a thing of the past; 
the class struggle has been fought and won; the 
"dictatorship of the proletariat" proclaimed at last. 
But where is Socialism, or is all this Socialism? 

If this isn't Socialism, if Socialism implies the 



THE SOCIAL INTERI'RETATION OF HISTORY 63 

ownership of the social means of production by so- 
ciety as a whole, in what way can it be to the eco- 
nomic interest of the proletariat, now that it has 
established its dictatorship, to give up to society 
the ownership of the means of production? The pro- 
letariat has no longer any grievance to be remedied. 
It is no longer exploited, it no longer creates Surplus 
Value, the class struggle is ended; why not leave 
well enough alone? WTiy give up the ownership of 
the means of production to society-at-large? Didn't 
the proletariat have enough experience with the 
ownership of the means of production in the hands 
of "outsiders"? It is all beyond comprehension. 

But Marx insists that the proletariat \\dll give up 
the ownership of the means of production to society 
as a whole; that is, it will establish Socialism. He 
states his belief in the following language: 

All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to 
fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society-at- 
large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletariat can- 
not become masters of the productive forces of society except by 
abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation and thereby 
also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have 
nothing of their own to secure and fortify ; their mission is to destroy 
all previous securities for, and insurance of, individual -property.^ 
[My italics.] 

This view is amplified as follows: 

If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is com- 
pelled by the force of circumstances to organize itself as a class, 
if by means of a revolution it makes itself the ruling class, and 
as such sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, 

^ Communist Manifesto, p. 30. 



)o 



64 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

then it will along with these conditions Imve swept away the conditions 
for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and 
will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class} [My 
italics.l 

No historian describing recorded facts of history 
could speak in more certain terms than does Marx 
in detaihng his views of the future. But where are 
the facts to prove his dogmatic assertions? He had 
none to offer. 

''The proletariat cannot become masters of the 
productive forces of society except by abolishing 
their previous mode of appropriation." That we 
may readily grant. Once the proletariat becomes 
master of the productive forces of society, their 
mode of appropriation is at once abolished. But does 
it necessarily follow from this that "they have 
nothing of their own to secure and fortify" and there- 
fore it becomes their mission to destroy all previous 
securities for and insurance of individual property? 
But if the proletariat have nothing of their own to 
secure and fortify, on whose behalf are they to make 
the terrible sacrifices that form an inevitable part 
of every revolution? Would it not be the height of 
folly on the part of the proletariat, after paying the 
bloody price exacted by a revolution before it could 
obtain the mastery over the productive forces of 
society, that it should fail to fortify its control over 
those forces? Had it not already worked out its his- 
toric mission when it had abolished its previous mode 
of appropriation? Had it not solved the problem 

1 Communist Manifesto, p. 46. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 65 

of exploitation and the class struggle through its 
mastery over the productive forces of society? Isn't 
it now in a position to obtain ''the full product of 
its toil"? Why should the now emancipated pro- 
letariat be expected to go beyond its own interests? 
But Marx insists that when the proletariat, by 
means of a revolution, will conquer the bourgeoisie 
and become the ruling class, instead of maintaining 
its position as ruling class — which apparently it holds 
without subjecting anyone to exploitation and which 
but serves to secure itself against future exploitation 
— it will abolish its own supremacy as a class. And 
now what is to be the physical and moral standard 
of the proletariat that is to prove not only equal to 
the task of overthrowing the powerfully intrenched 
bourgeoisie, but in addition to this, carry through a 
task that no master class of any previous epoch felt 
possessed of the power to accomplish, that of abolish- 
ing its own supremacy as a class? Here is Marx's 
own description: 

The modern laborer instead of rising with the progress of in- 
dustry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence 
of his own class. He becomes a pauper. . . . The bourgeoisie is 
unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society . . . because it is 
incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within its slavery; 
because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state that it 
has to feed him, instead of being fed by him.^ 

Such is to be the physical and moral state of the 
class that is to overthrow the bourgeoisie, itself be- 
come the ruling class, and then rise to the heights 

^ Communist Manifesto, p. 36. 



66 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

of abolishing its own supremacy as a class. And 
this view is offered in the name of science! 

Karl Kautsky seems to realize that the "dictator- 
ship of the proletariat" is not synonymous with 
Sociahsra. He joins Marx in granting the proletariat 
virtues hitherto unrevealed in human relations, 
virtues which will prompt the victorious proletariat 
to give up to society the fruits of its hard-won vic- 
tory. Kautsky, however, differs from Marx in that 
he allows such sublime virtues to the proletariat 
with a mental reservation. He can see the pos- 
sibility of the proletariat failing to show the altru- 
ism expected of it. 

"If the working class," says Kautsky, "did not 
make use of its mastery over the machinery of 
government to introduce the Socialist system of 
production, the logic of events would finally call 
some such system into being — but only after a useless 
waste of energy and time."^ 

Lenine and Trotsky are certainly IMarxians. 
They have won the battle of "democracy"! They 
have, through a violent revolution, overthrown the 
bourgeoisie and estabhshed the dictatorship of the 
proletariat. Have they created conditions that are 
likely to sweep away class antagonisms and of 
classes generally? Are there any indications of a 
deep-seated plot hatched by Lenine and Trotsky, the 
purpose of which is to abolish their own supremacy? 
Has anyone heard of any? Surely, news to this 
effect does not reach the ears of their "Comrades" 

1 Class Struggle, p. 191. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRET AT ION OF HISTORY 67 

with the speed that hes behind the bullets that Len- 
ine and Trotsky direct at the hearts of their "Com- 
rades." 

Lenine and Trotsky have out-Marxed Marx. 
They believe in bettering the instructions. Marx^ 
held that after the proletariat had overthrown the 
bourgeoisie and raised itself to the position of the 
ruling class it should proceed to put into effect a 
series of social reform measures, and this even *'in 
the most advanced countries." 

But Lenine and Trotsky are modern Marxians. 
They will have nothing to do with social reforms. Is 
Russia industrially one of the most backward coun- 
tries in the world? Lenine and Trotsky are above 
such trifles. Historically created conditions? Non- 
sense! ''Dictatorship of the proletariat!" 

And yet the chaos, the anarchy, the famine, the 
fratricide that are to-day the tragedy and despair 
of Russia are the direct result of the practical appli- 
cation of Marxian principles. The inherent contra- 
dictions which form the rock upon which the entire 
International Socialist movement has been smashed, 
we have now traced back to the theories formulated 
by Marx. 

Our analysis of the Communist Manifesto has dis- 
closed a series of contradictions which must prove 
fatal to the claim that the theories are based upon 
the laws of Social Evolution. We are compelled to 
raise the question whether Marx's arduous labors 
had really been crowned with success. Did Marx 

^ Communist Manifesto, p. 45. 



68 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

discover the laws of Social Evolution? Did he place 
Socialism upon a scientific basis? From the contra- 
dictions we have noted and from the impotency of 
the International Socialist movement, it would 
require no little courage to hold tenaciously to the 
belief that Marx had actually attained the purpose 
to which he had devoted his life. 

Marx believed that the class struggle is the dy- 
namic force of social progress. The economic interests 
of the owners of the means of production must in- 
variably conflict with the interests of the wage-earn- 
ers. This conflict, thought Marx, furnishes the basic 
motive for social progress. Marx was not the first 
to discern the presence of the class struggle in his- 
tory, but he was the first to assign to this struggle 
the role of the propelling power in social progress. 
This point was strongly emphasized by Marx's 
disciples, when he was accused of adopting the class 
struggle theory from others. Kautsky's defense 
serves as a noteworthy example. It reads: 

But wherein consists the particular merit of the Communist 
Manifesto, if the so-called theories of increasing misery and con- 
centration of capital were acknowledged by the other Socialists 
of their time, if they all based their Socialism upon the economic 
tendencies of the capitalist mode of production? 

This merit consisted first of all in the fact that these theories 
appeared more clear-cut in the Manifesto than in any other 
SociaUst publication of their time; and secondly in the conception 
of the role of the class struggle as THE DRIVING FORCE in 
social development and in the application of this conception to tlie 
proletarian struggle. Of this the majority of the other Socialists 
had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA and especially in that group to 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 69 

which Considorant belonged, the class struggle was considered a 
most deplorable error. To be sure, both Considorant and his 
associates acknowledged the existence of the class struggle, but 
they did not see how inevitably it grew out of the economic 
development, and prepared the way for the new order of things^ 

It is now more than seventy years since Marx 
has given us his class struggle theory as the pro- 
pelling force in Social Evolution. It formed the 
basis for most of his prophecies. 

Seventy years of history have put Marx's prin- 
ciples and prophecies to the test, and what has been 
the verdict? Has modern history vindicated Marx- 
ian principles? Has there been any social progress? 
Has it been attained through the class struggle at 
the point of production? Has it been attained at 
the expense of the owners of the means of produc- 
tion? Has modern history proven Marx's claim that 
the owners of the means of production and the work- 
ers cannot have any interests in common? Has 
modern history conformed to Marx's law that man 
is swayed in his actions by his interests as a producer? 

Marx himself noted that bourgeois society offered 
a good many exceptions to his universal laws of 
Social Evolution. Not so many, to be sure, as we 
have noted above, but he recounted a number of 
exceptions nevertheless. Is it possible that bour- 
geois society is an exception even to the class struggle 
theory? Has the class struggle been the propelling 
motive power of social progress in all past historj^, 

^ Das Kommunistische Manifest ein Plagiat, Neue Zeit, Jahre, 
XXIV, 1906, vol. xi, p. 698. Quoted by Simkhovich, pp. 150-151. 
(My italics.) 



^ 



70 TEE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

but on discovery of her secret did history drop this 
law and formulate a new one? 

How did Marx come to discover that the class 
struggle is the dynaixdc force in history? Frederick 
Engels admits us into the secret. It is contained in 
this passage: 

Whilst, however, the revolution in the conception of Nature 
could only be made in proportion to the corresponding positive 
materials furnished by research, already much earher, certain 
historical facts had occurred which led to a decisive change in the 
conceylion oj history. In 1831 the first working-class rising took 
place in Lyons; between 1838 and 1842 the first national work- 
ing-class movement, that of the English Chartists, reached its 
height. The class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie 
came to the front in the history of the most advanced countries in 
Europe, in proportion to the development, upon the one hand, 
of modern industry, upon the other of the newly acquired po- 
litical supremacy of the bourgeoisie. Facts more and more 
strenuously gave the lie to the teachings of bourgeois economy as to 
the identity of the interests of capital and labor, as to the universal 
harmony and universal prosperity that would be the consequence 
of unbridled competition! All these things could no longer be 
ignored any more than the French and English Socialism, which 
was their theoretical though very imperfect expression. But the 
old idealist conception of history, which was not yet dislodged, 
knew nothing of class struggles, based upon economic interests, 
knew nothing of economic interests, production and all economic 
relations appeared in it only as incidental, subordinate elements 
in "the history of civilization." 

The new facts made imperative a new examination of all past 
history. Then it was seen that all past history with the excep- 
tion of its primitive stages was tJie history of class struggles; that 
these warring classes of society are always the product of the 
modes of production and of exchange — in a word, of the economic 
conditions of theu' time; that the economic structiu-e of society 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 71 

always furnishes the real basis starting from which we can alone 
work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure 
of juridical and political institutions as well as of the religious, 
philosophical and other ideas of a given historical period. Hegel 
had freed historj' from metaphysics — he had made it dialectic — 
but his conception of history was essentially idealistic. But 
now idealism was driven from its last refuge, the philosophy of 
history; now a materiaUstic treatment of history was pro- 
pounded and a method found of explaining man's "knowing" 
by his "being," instead of as heretofore his "being" by his 
"knowing." 

From that time forward Socialism was no longer an accidental 
discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but the necesmry out- 
com.e of the struggle between two historically developed classes — the 
proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Its task was no longer to manu- 
facture a system of society as perfect as possible, but to examine 
the historico-economic succession of events from which these 
classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung, and to 
discover in the economic conditions thus created the means of 
ending the conflict.^ 

This detailed explanation gives us a very clear 
understanding of the facts which inspired Marx's 
theory of history. Working class risings and the 
growth of the labor movement left a profound im- 
pression upon the mind of Marx. He could not ig- 
nore them any more than he could ignore French 
and English Socialism. The formulation of the 
class struggle theory enabled him to combine both. 

The class struggle we learn from Engels, is the 
dynamic force in history. Between exploiters and 
exploited there cannot possibly be any harmony of / 
interest. 

* Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, Engels, pp. 89-92. (My italics.) 



72 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

There is yet another law formulated by Marx to 
which we must now turn our attention. It reads as 
follows : 

One form of society never perishes before all the productive 
forces are evolved for which it is sufficiently comprehensive and 
new or higher conditions of production never step on to the 
scene before the material conditions of existence of the same 
have come to light out of the womb of the old society.* 

What relation does this law bear to the class- 
struggle theory? Are they both part of the same 
universal law? Do they complement each other? 
Do they prove each other or do they contradict each 
other? Let us see. 

The bourgeoisie has sprung from the oppressed 
classes in feudal society. It went through a long 
course of development. It had to develop the ma- 
terial conditions as a basis for the new form of 
society. 

The basis of existence for the new master class was 
proletarian exploitation. What attitude did the pro- 
letariat assume toward the bourgeois? Marx fur- 
nishes the answer: 

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. 
With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. ... At this 
stage the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over 
the whole country and broken up by their mutual competition. 
If an3rwhere they united to form more compact bodies, this is 
not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the 
union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own 
political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion 
and is m oreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, 

1 A Contribution to the Criticism of Political Economy. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 73 

therefore, tlic proletariat do not fight their enemies, but the 
enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absokite monarchy, 
the landowners, the nonindustrial bourgeois, the petty bour- 
geois. Thus the whole historical movement is concentrated in 
the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a vic- 
tory for the bourgeoisie.' 

Now, why did the proletarians ''fight the enemies 
of their enemies" when every victory so obtained 
was a victory for the bourgeoisie? Would a victory 
for the bourgeoisie mean for the proletariat a reduc- 
tion in the rate of exploitation? Hardly. No master 
class in all history has enjoyed a rate of exploitation 
comparable to that of the bourgeoisie. No one 
knew this better than Marx. Yet the proletariat 
fought the battles for the bourgeoisie. What be- 
comes of the class-struggle theory? 

Again: The Sociahst system of society no more 
than any previous system cannot "step on to the 
scene before the material conditions of existence of 
the same have come to hght out of the womb of the 
old society." And this is not the only condition; 
there is yet another. The bourgeois system of so- 
ciety, Uke its predecessors, ''will not perish before 
all the productive forces are evolved for which it is 
sufficiently comprehensive." It is therefore to the 
interest of the proletariat and all others who would 
speed the day for Socialism, to help or at least not 
hinder, the development of the capitalist sytem to 
its utmost in the shortest possible time. But the 
capitalist class, too, is straining every nerve towards 

^Communist Manifesto, pp. 25-26. 



74 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

the same identical end. It cannot rest for an instant. 
It is working at fever heat in an effort to attain the 
highest possible point of development. 

Question: Is Socialism to be the outcome of con- 
flict of interests? It is beginning to appear that we 
must go to Marx for an effectual refutation of Marx. 

That Marx has erred fundamentally must be ap- 
parent to all save those who are but bhnd worship- 
pers. But specifically what is the nature of his errors? 

Is he wrong in his contention that all social systems 
have an economic foundation and that each system 
can be explained only through an understanding of 
its economic basis? Many an attempt has been made 
to upset this theory and each has reacted to the dis- 
comfiture of the challenger. 

Is he wrong in his theory that social systems change 
in response to a change in the mode of production 
and exchange? No one, as yet, has successfully 
refuted that doctrine. Is he right in his claim that 
in all previous society there have been classes and 
class struggles and that the present capitalist system 
is no exception? 

Is his "surplus value" theory as the genesis of the 
class struggle in capitalist society sound? None of 
these has been or can be refuted. 

Where, then, has Marx erred? How can his 
errors be demonstrated? Marx's errors must be 
sought not in his theories, but in his interpretation 
of his theories. Marx's failures are not due to his 
discoveries, but to the significance he attributed to 
his discoveries. 




THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 75 

Marx set himself the task of explaining social 
systems. He succeeded. To Marx belongs the glory . 
of having discovered that social systems have an / 
economic foundation and explanation. But what is ' 
the true significance of these discoveries? In making 
the discovery that society has an economic founda- 
tion and that a class struggle has been an inseparable 
phenomenon of every epoch, Marx believed that he 
had discovered the laws of Social Evolution. But 
what he discovered and described with such infinite 
detail were not the laws and operations of Social 
Evolution, but manifestations of the effects of the 
operations of the laws of Social Evolution. 

Marx did not deal with causes, but mth effects, 
which he mistook for causes. 

Marx did not discover the laws of Social Evolu- 
tion. He knew nothing of the operations of the laws 
of Social Evolution. 

If these facts can be successfully established we 
will, at the same time, have established: (1) that 
Marxian principles are not based upon the laws of 
Social Evolution, and therefore are not scientific, but 
Utopian ; (2) that Marxian principles are not social, 
but anti-social; (3) that the one difference between 
Marxian Utopianism and the Utopianism of St. Simon 
and others is that St. Simon sought to bring about 
Sociahsm through social means, while Marxists aim 
to bring about Socialism through anti-social means. 

As to all this, we are content to build and rest our 
case upon the accumulated facts of history. L 



CHAPTER VIII 



9 



\£> 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

If the Marxian laws of Social Evolution must be 
rejected, how are the true laws of Social Evolution to 
be determined? 

A study of the outstanding phenomena of history- 
brings to hght the fact that the propelling motive 
power behind all social change is the quest for a 
solution to the problem of existence. Man has been 
forced under penalty of extinction to concentrate 
his energies upon this universal quest. All past 
history is but a record of trials and experiences man 
has encountered in his efforts to make secure his 
earthly existence. The will to Uve is the universal 
economic problem. 

Organized society came into existence as the result 
of experience that taught the lesson of mankind's 
common problem and of the realization that its solu- 
tion is more likely to be attained through the co- 
operation of all having a common aim. 

All social advance has been registered not as the 
result of conflict of interest at the point of production, 
but in response to the common interests of the ma- 
jority as social beings. Social Evolution always 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 77 

operates in response to this universal law. The end 
and aim of all social progress is the solution to the 
problem of existence. 

The class struggle is an effect, not a cause. It is 
due to insecurity in the means of existence. It is to 
the interest of society as a whole to eliminate the 
cause. 

In proportion as society advances in its efforts to 
eliminate the cause do the effects disappear. 

The economic interests of the majority as con- 
sumers coincide and society advances in response to 
the economic interests of the majority as social 
beings and consumers. 

Each previous form of society has been called into 
existence as a gradual outgrowth of the preceding 
epoch and represented a distinct social advance. 
The test for any form of society is the ability of its 
productive forces to supply the wants of society. 
Failure to measure up to this test makes its doom 
inevitable. Gradually there are evolved new pro- 
ductive forces that promise to come closer to the solu- 
tion of some specific needs. Society as a whole is 
to that extent enriched. 

The old method must yield to the new and thus 
the old order with the form of exploitation peculiar 
to it is to that degree eliminated. The new order is 
evolved within the framework of the old in response 
to the social interests of the majority. The ma- 
jority is usually formed through a combination of 
the powerful and the useful as against the remnants 
of the past and the useless of the present. 



78 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

But we know that no previous order has done 
away with exploitation. The new epoch, evolved as 
a means of better fulfilling the needs of society 
brought with it the emancipation of the exploited 
under the old epoch. But from this group arose the 
new master class wdth the improved productive 
forces under its control. It was now the turn of this 
class to exploit. The improved method of production 
made the rate of exploitation of the new master 
class far greater than that to which it had itself been 
subjected. This is a universal law in social progress. 
) Nevertheless, the higher economic interests of the 

exploited were far more secure under the new epoch 
and their place in the social scale represented a dis- 
tinct advance over the position of the exploited 
class in the preceding epoch. Their improved con- 
dition as consumers and as social beings were the 
considerations that united the exploited of the new 
epoch to their exploiters, thus forming the majority 
against the remnant of the past and the useless of 
the present. 

In their economic interests as social beings, as con- 
sumers, all groups in society have many more in- 
terests in common than those over which they differ ; 
social progress, therefore, is registered mainly in the 
interests of consumers. Social systems change with 
a change in the mode of production, but modes of 
production change because they fail to solve the 
problem of existence. 

It is not economic evolution which gives rise to 
Social Evolution, but it is Social Evolution which 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 79 

dictates economic evolution. Social Evolution in its 
aim to solve the problem of existence has evolved 
the social mode of production. The social system 
adopted to the social mode of production is in the 
process of evolution, shaping itself in response to the 
social interests of the majority. It is not oz^erp re- 
duction but iinc?erproduction which is the outstand- 
ing historic threat to the capitalist mode of produc- 
tion. Socialism will be realized through a movement 
of consumers and not a movement of producers. 

The theories here formulated we group under the 
general heading of the social interpretation of his- 
tory. Economics, i.e., the solution of the problem 
of existence, forms its foundation. Marx's materi- 
alistic conception of history explains effects, not 
causes, and as a result has everything inverted. He 
tells us that Economic Evolution gives rise to Social 
Evolution. That social production is the result of 
the operation of antisocial principles — competition 
between capitalists and conflict of interest between 
capital and labor — that Socialism will be brought 
about through the operation of an antisocial law — 
the class struggle. Social progress, we are told, re- 
sponds to the interests of producers. Marx's con- 
ception of history made it impossible for him to 
point out a universal law of social progress operating 
throughout the several epochs recorded in history. 
He therefore found it necessary to give us two laws, 
namely : 

" All previous historical movements were movements of 
minorities or in the interest of minorities," while " the prole- 



/ 



1 



80 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

tarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement 
of the immense majority in the interest of the immense ma- 
jority." 

Marx's belief that the modern laborer, instead of 
rising with the progress of industry, must sink deeper 
and deeper below the conditions of existence of his 
own class, is also based upon his conception of his- 
tory. To Marx, no social progress was possible 
except through revolution. In 1850 Marx wrote as 
follows : 

The only solution of the ten-hour problem, as of all problems 
arising from the antagonism of capital and labor, is the j^role- 
tarian revolution} 

Marx was a social pathologist. He studied social 
pathology and mistook the phenomena he observed 
for the laws of social biology. The manifestations 
of the class struggle are symptoms of social pathology 
analogous to such symptoms as pain, heat, redness 
and swelling in human pathology. The former are 
no more the laws of sociology than the latter are the 
laws of biology. 

It is plainly to be seen that Marxian principles 
are not based upon an understanding of the laws of 
Social Evolution and therefore are not scientific, but 
Utopian. 

' In Marx's Ncue Rheinische Zcitung, Heft 4, London, 1850, p. 13. 
Quoted by Simldiovitch, in Marxism versus Socialism, p. 108. 



CHAPTER IX 

"MARXISTS" AND THE MARXIAN METHOD 

We have learned that Marxian prmciples are un- 
scientific inasmuch as they are not based upon the 
laws of Social Evolution. The International SociaHst 
movement, which is based upon Marxian principles, 
is therefore a movement devoid of scientific merit. 
But can we discern a distinction between Marx and 
''Marxists"? The distinction is so marked and out- 
standing that it would be an insult to his memory to 
couple Marx with "Marxists." 

Marx's conclusions were wrong. They proved to 
be unscientific. But this does not detract in the 
least from the merit of his method. Marx used the , 
scientific method. He spurned all attempts to force J, 
Social Evolution in a direction contrary to his under- 
standing of its operations. He refused to force a 
social system upon society. He devoted himself to 
a study of society so that he might intelligently co- 
operate with social tendencies. Marx recognized but 
one master — science. Marx's epoch-making contri- 
bution to Socialism, the contribution that transcends 
all else he has accomplished, is his recognition that 
scientific activity in behalf of Socialism must be an 



82 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

activity based upon an understanding of and co- 
operation with the laws of Social Evolution. 

Do Marx's disciples seek to prove their loyalty to 
Marx by using his scientific method? Not at all. 
Modern, scientific Socialists prove their loyalty to 
Marx by rejecting his methods, but worshipping his 
conclusions. Though Social Evolution has been 
sweeping onward at a speed unparalleled in Marx's 
time, his disciples refuse to apply his methods in an 
effort to explain the new phenomena, but have stood 
still, petrified, fixed to the spot where Marx had 
left them, in fear no doubt of straying from the true 
scientific position. Or is it out of reverence for 
IMarx's memory? Yet it is very much to be doubted 
whether ]\Iarx, were he with us to-day, would see in 
such action any homage to him. Rather would he 
feel that his life work was all but wasted. He had 
left behind blind followers instead of intelHgent dis- 
ciples. Marx dared to tread in unbeaten paths. To 
this trait is due all that is great in Marx. Honoring 
Marx consists not in blindly accepting his conclu- 
sions, but in applying his methods. " The thing which 
shows that the investigator of actual relations is really 
an orthodox Marxian/^ says Kautsky, "is not that he 
thoughtlessly follows Marx, but that he applies his 
methods in order to understand facts'' ^ 

Yet one looks in vain for a contribution which aims 
to apply the Marxian method for the interpretation 
of modern social facts. What we get instead is a 
monotonous repetition of the demands first voiced 

* Social Revolution, p. 61. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 83 

in 1848 in the Coviniunist Manifesto that the "cap- 
italist system must be abolished " ! But the capitaUst 
system is not at all obliging. It refuses to be fright- 
ened out of existence. Why does it take so long to 
abolish the capitalist system and how much longer 
will it take? The tenacity of the capitalist system 
puts these scientific Sociahsts into a most awkward 
position. 

A political party, such as the American Socialist 
Party, that year in and year out goes before the 
people with a demand for the overthrow of the 
capitalist system, forfeits all claims to science. In 
Marx's time such a demand had some justification. 
Marx believed that he had discovered the laws of 
Social Evolution, and his study of the causes of crises 
and other phenomena in capitalist society led him 
to beheve that the collapse of capitalism was not 
only imminent, but long overdue. Can anyone 
imagine that Marx would have held to that demand 
if he had had any idea that after three-quarters of a 
century of peremptory ordering that it depart, the 
capitalist system would still be with us? 

Marx's excoriation of Weitling's propaganda is a 
good indication of what his attitude would have been. 
Said Marx: 

TeU us, Weitling, you who with your Communistic propaganda 
have made so much noise in Germany and have attracted so 
many laborers ; with what arguments do you defend your social 
revolutionary agitation and upon what do you intend to base 
your agitation in the future? ... To appeal in Germany to the 
workingmen nnthout strictlu scientific and concrete doctrine is 



84 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

tantamount to an ejnpty-headed and conscienceless play mth propa- 
ganda.^ 

Marx would have been the first to repudiate those 
who, though they claim to be his disciples, refuse to 
apply his methods in an effort to explain the seventy 
years of social experiences that have accumulated 
since his time, but insist on repeating the old demands 
formulated by Marx. 

Where is the science that can justify a repetition 
of the same demands in the Hght of seventy years' 
experience with Social Evolution? Social Evolution 
has proved these demands to be rank Utopianism, a 
Utopianism so inexcusable that it would be an insult 
to the memory of the early Utopian bourgeois Social- 
ists to class them together. For modern Socialists to 
hold fast to principles that have proved to be in 
opposition to the laws of Social Evolution is not the 
test of true IMarxism, but a proof of anti-IMarxism. 
Loyalty to science is the true test of Marxism. 

Says Wilhelm Liebknecht: 

We recognize no infallibility and no other authority than 
science, whose sphere is ever widening and conliiiually proves 
what it previously held as truths to he errors, destroys the old de- 
cayed foundations and creates new ones; does not stand still 
for an instant; but in perpetual advance moves remorselessly 
over every dogmatic belief. ... I maintain that no man — Marx 
in spite of his comprehensive and deep intellect, as little as any 
other — can bring science to final perfection and this position is 
for everyone who understands the nature of science a foregone 
conclusion.^ 

1 Die Neue Zeit., vol. i, 18S3, p. 239. Quoted by Simkhovitch, p. 
247. (My itahcs.) 

* No Compromise, No Political Trading, pp. 37-38. (My italics.) 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 85 

Without the scientific method there can be no 
scientific SociaHsm. This is the cardinal principle 
laid down by Marx. Well was he justified in his 
expectation that this discovery would prove a uni- 
fying and binding force to the Socialist and labor 
movement. It was to serve for all time as a chart, 
a compass that would unerringly point to the scien- 
tific method of working for Socialism — by co-oper- 
ating with Social Evolution. This method would 
make impossible all conflicting opinion. There 
would be no divisions into several wings: Right, 
Center, Left. There would be no revolutionists, no 
opportunists, no impossibilists and no moderates. 
All these find a place in a Utopian movement in 
which each faction believes that it has the best 
scheme for bringing about Socialism. But in a scien- 
tific movement, which is based on Marx's teaching 
that only Social Evolution possesses the power to 
bring about SociaUsm, all unite in a study of the 
direction that Social Evolution appears to be taking 
and by co-operating help to accelerate the process. 

Karl Kautsky says: 

What the thinkers can do is to discover, to recognize the trend; 
and this they can do in proportion to the clearness of their under- 
standing of the conditions which preceded, but they can never 
themselves determine the course of Social Evolution. And even 
the recognition of the trend of social progress has its limits. 
The organization of social life is most complex, even the clearest 
intellect finds it impossible to probe it from all sides and to 
measure all the forces at work in it with sufficient accuracy to 
enable him to foretell accurately what social forms will result 
from the joint action of all these forces. A new social form does 



^>, 



86 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

not come into existence through the activity of certain especially 
gifted men. . . . No one, whether he be the mightiest monarch or 
the wisest and most benevolent philosopher, can determine at 
will the direction that Social Evolution shall take or prophesy 
accurately the new forms that it will adopt. . . . Never yet in the 
history of mankind has it happened that a revolutionary party 
was able to foresee, let alone determine, the forms of the new 
social order which it strove to usher in. The cause of progress 
gained much if it could as much as ascertain the tendencies that led 
to such a new social order, to the end that its political activity could 
be a conscious and not merely an instinctive one.^ , 

But in spite of these teachings, modern Socialists 
hold to the Utopian belief that it is within their 
power to force Social Evolution to do their bidding. 
As each group seeks to force Social Evolution in the 
direction most appealing to the temperament of its 
personnel, we find hopeless division and strife, and 
all this at a crucial period when unity could have 
accomplished so much for progress and humanity. 

Marxian conclusions, Marxian principles, have not 
stood the test of science. They are in conflict with 
Social Evolution. By adhering to these principles 
in theory, but repudiating them in practice, the 
Marxists paved the way for the internal strife that is 
to-day the tragedy of International Socialism. 

The progress of Socialism and the progress of the 
world demand that we discard the old, unscientific 
principles, which are based upon the materialistic 
conception of history, with its theory that Social 
Evolution operates through class conflict and that 
there can be no harmony of interest between the 

1 Class Struggle, pp. 119-120-121-122-123. (My italics.) 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 87 

owners of the means of production and the prole- 
tariat. The class struggle at the point of production ^ 
is not the law of social progress. Social Evolution 
does not operate in the interest of producers, but in 
the interest of consumers. The owners of the means 
of production and their exploited have common 
social interests and Social Evolution responds to the 
common social interests of the majority, obtained 
through a combination of the powerful and the use- 
ful as against the remnant of the past and the useless 
of the present. 

Such are the teachings of Social Evolution and 
these teachings invite the formulation of the social 
interpretation of history. 



.^> 



CHAPTER X 

MARXIAN PRINCIPLES ANTISOCIAL^ 

Our analysis has brought out the astonishing 
revelation that the International Socialist movement 
is based upon principles that are neither scientific 
nor Sociahstic, but on the contrary are both Utopian 
and antisocial. 

As their Utopian character has already been 
shown, we must now point out their antisocial 
character. 

The class-struggle theory is fundamentally anti- 
social. Marx was scathing in his criticism of the 
social appeal of the Utopian Sociahsm of St. Simon, 
Owen and Fourier. "They want to improve the con- 
dition of every member of society, even that of the 
most favored. Hence they habitually appeal to 
society-at-large, without distinction of class. "^ JNIarx- 
ian scientific Socialism with its class-struggle theory 
as the law of history must make a class appeal. 

VvTiat is the basis for the class struggle in modern 
capitahst society? 

The modern class struggle arises from the fact that 
capital exacts a tribute from labor in the shape of 

1 Comviunist Manifesto, p. 60. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 89 

Surplus Value. But whence comes this Surplus 
Value? Surplus Value represents the difference 
between the wages paid to labor and the value of the 
products created by labor. Through their owner- 
ship of the means of production the capitalist class 
is in a position to compel the laborer to produce 
beyond the value of his wages, the difference going 
to the capitalist class as Surplus Value or profit. 
This exploitation of labor at the point of production 
gives rise to the class struggle — a conflict over with- 
held wages or Surplus Value. 

These facts became revealed to Marx following an 
intensive study of the capitalist mode of production. 
He called upon the Socialists to recognize the his- 
toric significance of the class struggle at the point of 
production and to ally themselves on the side of the 
producers as against the owners of the means of pro- 
duction. They must help bring about a revolution 
and the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

To expect to attain social progress through social 
effort appeared to Marx as the height of Utopianism. 
Social progress was possible only through the anti- 
social struggle at the point of production. A revolu- 
tion and the dictatorship of the proletariat must be 
the agencies through which to attain any measure of 
social progress. Until the revolution is accom- 
plished there can be no progress, only retrogression. 

Such are the theories that for more than seventy 
years have been acclaimed as the scientific explana- 
tion of social history and Social Evolution. Yet it is 
doubtful if there was ever a theory that has been 



^ 



90 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

accepted as scientific by the best brains throughout 
the civihzed world that could, through a study of 
Social Evolution, be so easily proven to be the height 
of Utopianism. 

We know that society has not retrograded. It 
hasn't even stood still. On the contrary, society has 
progressed at a pace and to a point undreamed of in 
Marx's time. 

Marx made two predictions: (1) capitalism must 
soon collapse; (2) there can be no social progress as 
long as capitalism exists. What are the facts? 
Capitalism has not collapsed; there has been social 
progress under capitalism. 

In view of the fact that seventy years of Social 
Evolution has proved that Marx was mistaken and 
that there can be progress without revolution, for 
Marx's disciples to still hold to the revolution theory 
is both grotesque and pernicious. It implies an al- 
most unbelievable bhndness to the social phenomena 
going on about us. 

Marx, were he living to-day, would readily have 
grasped the full significance of modern social progress. 
He was a student and would soon have discovered 
where he had been mistaken in his conceptions of the 
operation of Social Evolution. His was a scientific 
A mind. He had no schemes of his own to foist upon 
•^J society. He sought to understand Social Evolution 
')^\in order that he might co-operate with it. In this 
"^nd this only hes the great lesson of his life. But 
this lesson has been lost upon Socialists. Even the 
best of them have failed to use his scientific method, 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 91 

but to this day continue to repeat formulas he pub- 
lished in 1848. The antisocial class struggle and 
proletarian revolution must be the method, they say, 
by which Socialism is to be brought about. 

Even Karl Kautsky is a strenuous supporter of 
this view. In his work, The Social Revolution,^ he 
presents his views as to how Sociahsm will be brought 
about. He says: 

While the former revolutions were uprisings of the populace 
against the Government, the coming revolution, with the excep- 
tion perhaps of Russia, will have more the character of a struggle 
of one portion of the people against another, and therein only 
resemble more the struggle of the Reformation than the type 
of the French Revolution. I might almost say that it will be 
much less of a sudden uprising against the authorities than a 
long-drawn-out civil war, if one does not necessarily join to these 
last words, the idea of actual slaughter and battles. [My italics.] 

And this was written more than half a century 
after the publication of the Communist Manifesto! 
Social progress has stood still since Marx! Nothing 
has happened in the past half century that could in 
any way indicate how capitalism would be abolished I 

Socialism, according to Kautsky, will be brought 
about through antisocial methods! Through civil 
war, through a struggle of one portion of the people 
against another! And organized society apparently 
will play no active part in this ''civil war"! This is 
supposed to be a description of the Social Revolu- 
tion! But Russia would probably prove an ex- 
ception, was Kautsky 's prediction. The Russian 

1 Pages 87-8. 



92 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

Revolution, he implied, would be more on the order 
of former revolutions, uprisings of the populace 
against the Government. Weren't these, then, 
Social Revolutions? 

We know that Kautsky's prediction was proven 
to the hilt. The Czar's overthrow was brought about 
through a general uprising of the populace against 
the Government. WTiat interests us at this point is 
this : Why did Kautsky make an exception of Russia? 
The average Socialist, with an air of having said the 
last word upon the subject, will toss off the follow- 
ing answer trippingly from his tongue, ''Because 
Russia has not yet gone through the industrial 
development which is a necessary preliminary to the 
Social Revolution." Good, but is that stating a law 
or describing the result of the operations of a law? 

"VVTiat is the underlying law which was responsible 
for the union of all factions against the Czar's Gov- 
ernment and which alone made possible the impos- 
sible — a successful revolution against the Czar, 
accomphshed practically without bloodshed? Is 
this a social or an antisocial law? Does it operate 
in response to the class struggle or in response to the 
interests of the majority as social beings? Did that 
law die with the Czar and thereafter Social Evolu- 
tion was to be governed by new laws? Do new 
social systems bring with them new social laws or 
have the same laws operated throughout history, 
manifesting themselves in different forms in the 
different epochs? 

Kautsky would have us believe that the law of 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 93 

Social Evolution tliat led to the overthrow of the 
Czar — which he would be compelled to admit was 
accomplished through a social revolution — could not 
possibly bring about Socialism. Socialism can only 
be brought about through the operation of a new law, 
an antisocial law, "a struggle of one portion of the 
people against another," through a ''civil war." 

Such are Kautsky's teachings. He stands in little 
danger of being accused of having originated them. 
At any rate it would not be dijEhcult for him to dis- 
prove such an accusation. Marx originated them 
over a half century ago and Kautsky can prove it. 

Lenine and Trotsky find themselves in complete 
agreement with Kautsky. Socialism, they say, can 
be brought about only through antisocial methods, 
through the class struggle at the point of production, 
through a struggle of one portion of the people 
against another — through civil war. 

Well, how does the practical application of those 
principles appeal to Kautsky? He shrinks from them 
in horror! ''A form of Asiatic Socialism," he calls it. 
Oh, no, it isn't. It is Kautsky's teachings of Marxian 
principles put to practice, that's all. 

Only Lenine and Trotsky are practical men. 
Kautsky taught that the Social Revolution would 
come as the result of a civil war, if one does not neces- 
sarily join to these last words the idea of actual 
slaughter and battles. No wonder Lenine and 
Trotsky call Kautsky a back number. To them civil 
war without battles and slaughter is a Utopian 
dream. In a speech dehvered at Weimar, Chancellor 



94 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

Scheidemann referred to Lenine's position as 
follows : 

We want a great world alliance in which equal nations can 
develop freely without the old fetters of armaments and withoiU 
the new burdens of Bolshevist civil war. That separates us from 
the ideas of Lenine, who has boasted of having recommended that 
the abolition of disarmament should be struck off the Socialistic 
program because the idea of overcoming capitalism without civil 
war was Utopian.^ [My italics.] 

Lenine and Trotsky are absolutely right. Civil 
war, no more than war between nations, cannot be 
possible without slaughter and battles. We may as 
well be consistent. 

But Kautsky is not the only Socialist leader who 
lacks the courage of his convictions. Emile Vander- 
velde, the Belgian Sociahst, is another conspicuous 
example. In his latest work, he expresses himself as 
follows: 

Statism is the organization of social labor by the State, by 
the Government. Socialism is the organization of social labor 
by the workers grouped in public associations. Of these two 
systems, the realization of the former would be conceivable 
without any essential change in the present relations between 
the classes. ... It is not a question of replacing private cap- 
italism by State capitalism, but private capitalism and State 
capitalism by the co-operation of the workers, masters of the means 
of production and exchange. And such a transformation which 
suppresses the distinction between capitalists and workers is nothing 
less than a revolution.^ [My italics.] 

1 New York Times, April 12, 1919. 
* Socialism versus the State. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 95 

Leiiiiie and Trotsky are trying to carry out these 
principles. They are trying by means of a revolution 
to make the workers masters of the means of produc- 
tion and exchange. Does Vandervelde come to their 
support in this, their trying hour? Not at all. Like 
Kautsky, Vandervelde shrinks from the practical 
appHcation of his theories. More than that, he 
actually repudiates the principles he laid down in 
his book and instead accepts the principles of State 
Socialism, as the following report will amply demon- 
strate. Vandervelde is a member of the Committee 
on International Labor Legislation of the Peace 
Conference. This committee laid before the Peace 
Conference a series of recommendations which were 
accepted and adopted. 

The New York Times published the following*: 

Before the report was adopted, Emile Vandervelde, the Belgian 
labor delegate, made what was in effect a minority report. He 
advocated the admission to the International Labor Conference 
of delegates from countries with which a state of war still existed, 
saying that otherwise he felt there might be held another confer- 
ence at which the proletariat from all countries would he repre- 
sented and which would wield more power than the conference to 
he held in Washington next October. IMy itahcs.] 

Vandervelde concluded by saying that questions 
relative to the adoption of an eight-hour day, equality 
of salaries for men and women workers and legisla- 
tion dealing with night work, must be settled. There 
are two ways to arrive at these results, he said. The 
Russian way, and the British method. He preferred 

1 April 13, 1919. 



96 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

the latter. No wonder Lloyd George in his address 
to the House of Commons^ in defense of his course 
at the Peace Conference, boasted proudly of Van- 
dervelde's stand as follows: ''A great labor orator 
at the Labor Conference on Friday said: 'There 
are two methods of dealing with the situation — the 
Russian method and the English method,' and I felt 
a thrill of pride for my country." Such is Socialist 
consistency in theory and practice! 

Lenine and Trotsky are at least consistent. They 
are trying to put their principles into practice. 
They are calling a meeting of their own International, 
at which the proletariat of all countries will be repre- 
sented and which Vandervelde would prefer to 
prevent. 

According to Lloyd George, Lenine and Trotsky 
certainly cannot complain of unfavorable conditions 
for their experiment. They are trying it out in a 
country that is very easy to invade, but difficult to 
conquer. 

The world is in a turmoil and heartily sick of war. 
No capitaUst nation would dare send a large army 
into Russia with the intention of overthrowing Bol- 
shevism. The masses are in no mood for such enter- 
prises. Whether they agree with Lenine or not — 
and most of them probably do not — there is yet a 
feeling that Bolshevism seeks to serve the interests 
of the masses. The capitalist class of the world 
could not capitalize the patriotism of the masses for 
the purpose of invading Russia. Their hands are 

1 AprU 16, 1919. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 97 

full taking care of disturbances within their own 
countries. Then, too, there is the world's financial 
condition to be considered. It hardly warrants 
further expenditures for war purposes. Mr. George, 
in the speech quoted above, made reference to this 
situation as follows: 

I share the horror for Bolshevist teaching, but I would rather 
leave Russia Bolshevist until she sees her way out of it than to see 
Britain hankrupt. That is the surest road to Bolshevism in Britain. 
[My itaUcs.] 

For this situation Lenine and Trotsky should be 
mighty thankful. If conditions could be made to 
order, they could not be improved upon. Yet, de- 
spite these advantageous conditions, can they suc- 
ceed without yielding from their present uncom- 
promising Marxian position? The answer must be 
decidedly in the negative. 

Social Evolution cannot be forced in a false direc- 
tion, no matter how favorable the conditions or how 
great the power behind the effort. Particularly is it 
impossible to force Social Evolution to operate on 
the principles of surgery. Sociahsts are given to 
prating about ''removing the cause." Social systems 
cannot be removed surgically — by cutting out with 
a knife. Social Evolution alone possesses the power 
to cure social ills. Just as a physician must study 
physiology and pathology in order to understand 
nature's method of dealing with disease, and thus 
be in a position to intelligently co-operate with nar 
ture in an effort to bring about a cure — which can 



98 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

be brought about only by nature herself — so must 
the scientific Socialist study Social Evolution, com- 
prehend the laws that underlie its operations in order 
that he may intelligently assist in the process. More 
than that he cannot do. To believe that he can him- 
self force a cure by ''removing the cause" is to put 
himself entirely outside of the pale of science. 

While revolutions cannot be made to order, they 
nevertheless can be explained. Past revolutions were 
uprisings of the populace against the Government. 
There is an explanation for this. Marx and Kautsky 
tell us that the next revolution will take the form of a 
civil war; one portion of the people against another 
rather than against the authorities. They offer an 
explanation for this prediction. This explanation 
has the class struggle for its basis. No conclusion 
other than civil war is admissible upon such a 
premise. 

We have proven this premise to be absolutely 
false. The claim that the class struggle has been 
the historic basis of social progress we now know to 
be false and Utopian. The class struggle has been a 
phenomenon of every historic epoch since primitive 
communism, but Social Evolution did not evolve in 
response to this struggle. The propelling motive 
power behind all social change has been the basic 
economic problem, the solution to the problem of 
existence. Man evolved in response to his interests 
as a consumer, not as a producer. Society evolved 
in response to the interests of the majority, as con- 
sumers, as social beings, not as producers. . Social 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 99 

production evolved as the most efficient method of 
solving the problem common to all in society as con- 
sumers, not as producers. And social ownership of 
these means of production must ultimately be 
brought about by way of the common interest of the 
majority in society organized as consumers, not as 
producers. 

The civil war antisocial theory is false because its 
premise is false. It does not possess a single element 
of scientific justification. It has no precedent in 
history and the striking manifestations of modern 
Social Evolution stamp such a prediction as irre- 
sponsible and ludicrous prattle. 

Marx's disciples have in practice thoroughly re- 
pudiated this theory. Parliamentary activity is 
essentially social in its nature. Parliamentary 
activity was adopted empirically, in opposition to 
the dictates of their principles. It is for this reason 
that revolutionary, scientific Marxians are opposed 
to parliamentary activity. It is the rock which has 
split the International Socialist movement into hope- 
lessly impotent factional groups. Lenine and Trot- 
sky, the Spartacides, and all Left Wing factions de- 
mand uncompromising adherence to Marxian anti- 
social principles. They demand proletarian pro- 
cedure and the dictatorship of the proletariat. They 
are opposed to parliamentarism. 



CHAPTER XI 

WHOM DOES CAPITALISM EXPLOIT? 

What is the net result of the class struggle since 
Marx's time? Has labor succeeded in obtaining a 
larger proportion of what it produces or has capital 
increased its share of labor's products? How is the 
answer to be determined? 

The Marxian will tell us that the answer is easily 
obtained. The purchasing power of wages is the 
infallible barometer. At this writing (April, 1919) 
the purchasing power of wages is probably lower 
than at any time in the past half century. Does this 
mean that modern producers are worse off than were 
the producers of fifty years ago? 

A gain in wages if not offset by an increase in 
living cost is a real gain. But most wage gains are 
offset by advances in the cost of necessities; there- 
fore, the amount of Surplus Value extracted from the 
workers would not be reduced. But suppose the 
cost of living remained fixed and the workers of a 
given industry were to succeed in reducing, say by 
50 per cent., the amount of Surplus Value extracted 
from them, would this meet with Socialist approval? 
Assuming that the workers could succeed in reducing 
the Surplus Value still more, say by 95 per cent., 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 101 

would not the Socialists be delighted? And, finally, 
if the workers were to succeed in driving the cap- 
italist owners out entirely and were themselves to 
take over the means of production, would the So- 
cialists exclaim in glee that the class struggle is over, 
for the workers are now obtaining the full product 
of their toil at least in one industry. Would there 
arise any question among Socialists whether they 
ought to support the workers in their efforts to 
obtain that last 5 per cent? What could be the 
ground for an objection? In what way could the 
Socialists convince the workers who were now in a 
position to obtain ''the full product of their toil" 
that they ought to turn the ownership over to the 
whole people? 

"You taught us that all profit comes from labor. 
We did away with profit in our industry; what can 
we gain by turning the industry over to the people; 
where is the injustice if we keep it ourselves? We 
do not exploit anyone." How would this argument 
be met in the light of all Socialist teaching? 

The Socialists have never offered a rational reply 
to this form of argument. Such argument is valid 
in the light of present-day Socialist teachings. When 
Socialists who show such a readiness to follow Marx 
will betray a like wllingness to study Marx, the 
answer will soon become apparent. 

The class struggle in capitalist society arises from 
the fact that capital extracts Surplus Value at the 
point of production. Who created the values and 
from whom does capital extract Surplus Value and 



102 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

to whom does Socialism aim to restore the Surplus 
Value which, under the present system, is appro- 
priated by capital? 

What is meant by ''social tools, social means of 
production"? Do we mean a modern factory with 
its division of labor, each contributing a part towards 
the finished product that is the output of that fac- 
tory? Have the workers of that factory the right to 
claim the finished product as their sole property? 
Did Marx's study of the nature of capitalist produc- 
tion justify this conclusion? 

Let us see what Marx has to say on this vital 
point : 

Capital is a collective product, only by the united action of 
many members, nay, in the last resort only by the united action 
of all members of society can it be set in motion. Capital is there- 
fore not a personal, it is a social power. When, therefore, capital 
is converted into common property, into the property of all mem- 
bers of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into 
social property. It is only the social character of the property 
that is changed. It loses its class character.^ 

In the above quotation, Marx makes it perfectly 
clear that in modern society it is not alone the im- 
mediate workers of a given industry that contribute 
toward the creation of social values, but every useful 
member of society, directly or indirectly, contributes 
something toward the creation of these values. 

Let us take a single industry, as an illustration of 
this important fact, a fact which the Socialist 
parties of the world have completely ignored. 

* Co^n-munist Manifesto, p. 35. (My italics). 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 103 

The Ford automobile will serve our purpose 
admirably. 

Henry Ford and his comparatively few associates 
extract annually millions of dollars in Sur})lus Value 
in the process of the manufacture and sale of the 
Ford car. To whom does that Surplus Value belong? 
Is it the sole product of the vast army of workers im- 
mediately involved in the manufacture of the Ford? 
Think of the materials contained in the Ford car. 
We have to go back to the mines. We have to go 
back to the chemists who made possible the extrac- 
tion of the ore; think of the tools and machinery 
without which mining would be impossible. Think 
of the millions who directly or indirectly contributed 
towards the creation of that mining machinery. 
Think of the transportation, from the inventors of 
steam and electricity to the man who drives the 
spikes into the beam that holds the rail. Think of 
this beam that came from the forest ; try to enumer- 
ate the countless steps in the process before it could 
be used as a rail support. Think of the road-build- 
ing, without which automobiles would be useless, 
and think of the thousands of other factors that have 
contributed to the creation of the value that is 
represented in the Ford car, and then ask yourself 
the question, to whom does the Surplus Value ex- 
tracted by Ford and his associates belong? How 
is it possible for a worker to determine the full value 
of his labor and so be able to tell when he is obtaining 
the "full product of his toil"? Neither Marx nor 
Engels ever undertook to answer that question for 



104 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

the individual worker or any group of workers. On 
the contrary, Engels^ admits, that there are diffi- 
culties with the popular claim of the worker to the 
full proceeds of his labor. 

It would be difficult to determine what amount 
would constitute the "full product of his toil" for 
any laborer, because the part an individual plays in 
modern production is absorbed in the intricacies of 
social production, and here by social production is 
meant not simply subdi\^sion of labor in a given 
industry, but division of labor in society as a whole. 
The wealth created annually is the product of all 
useful members of society. 

Marx treated his subject from the standpoint of a 
single capitalist and single worker, not with the aim 
of pointing out to the individual worker how to ob- 
tain the ''full product of his toil," but for the purpose 
of simpUfying and making more graphic the com- 
pHcated mechanism involved in the process of 
exploitation under the capitaUst system. 

The individual worker could not obtain the full 
product of his toil from the individual capitahst for 
the simple reason that the individual capitalist does 
not himself realize the full value of labor's product. 
Marx pointed out very clearly that the capitalist 
does not sell commodities at their value, but at their 
price of production plus the average profit rate. 

If the individual capitahst does not obtain full 
value for his commodities, he obviously could not 



1 Herr Eugen Dubrig's Unwatzung, quoted by Bernstein, p. 28, 
Evolutionary Socialism. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 105 

give the laborer the full value of his product, even if 
he so desired. 

Are we to conclude then that it will be impossible 
to determine the point at which it can be said that 
exploitation has ceased? The point is easily deter- 
mined, if we keep constantly before us the important 
fact that production is a social process, that every 
useful member of society has contributed toward 
the creation of the national wealth. Marx made it 
very clear that there is but one scientific way of 
gauging capitalist exploitation and that is by ascer- 
taining the proportion that capitalist exploitation 
bears to the value of the total production of society 
and not to the value of the product of an individual 
laborer or group of laborers. The capitalist class 
exploits society as a whole; it appropriates social 
Surplus Value. Marx strongly emphasized this 
vital fact and used it with great force in every 
controversy. 

Now, if it is society that is the creator of all social 
wealth, if it is society that is compelled to yield up 
Surplus Value to the capitalist class, instead of a 
class struggle, what in reality is taking place is a 
social struggle — the struggle of society against a 
class, the profit-making class. Marxian economics 
admit of no other conclusion. To uphold the anti- 
social class struggle theory in the face of these facts 
is to effectively repudiate Marx. 

If Marx recognized that the wealth annually cre- 
ated is the product of social effort, created through 
the aid of every useful member in society, why didn't 



106 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

he base his demand for Sociahsm on social lines? 
Why did he appeal to but one class, the proletariat? 
Why did he call for revolutionary action on the part 
of the proletariat? 

Marx believed that in the class struggle he had 
discovered the historic law of Social Evolution. He 
disclosed the genesis of the class struggle in capitalist 
society, showing that it arises out of the fact that 
Surplus Value is extracted at the point of production. 
To Marx,' it appeared that society as a whole is 
split into two great classes directly facing each 
other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. He expected 
that the proletariat would soon constitute the ''im- 
mense majority." Whsit meaning did the term 
"proletariat" convey to Marx? Was it limited to 
the manual workers directly engaged in factory 
production? No one would prove so bold as to sup- 
port this contention. Marx, as we have seen, fully 
recognized the social character of wealth production, 
and directed his appeal to the producers because of 
his conception of the historic law of Social Evolution. 

Social progress, thought Marx, always operates 
through the class struggle and, since the majority 
had common interests primarily as producers, to 
appeal to the producers was to him the logical, his- 
torical and therefore scientific procedure. 

So long as the capitaUst system lasts, thought 
Marx, exploitation at the point of production not 
only must continue, but must increase; therefore, 
a revolution is the only method by which to abohsh 

1 Communist Manifesto, p. 13. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 107 

exploitation. It was not expected that this would 
prove a difficult task in view of the fact that the 
capitalist mode of production appeared in imminent 
danger of collapse. 

Marx's predictions were not fulfilled because the 
premise upon which they are based is false. Modern 
social history has brought to light the fact that Marx 
had no conception of the true laws of Social Evolu- 
tion operating throughout history and in modern 
society. 

Present-day Marxians, instead of observing the 
lessons of history, adhere dogmatically to Marx's 
conclusions, or, what is worse, to their own narrow 
garbled and perverted interpretation of his conclu- 
sions. Hence, in their agitation they completely 
ignore the social character of modern production; 
they appeal primarily to the industrial proletariat, 
the worker in direct contact with the industrial 
processes. 

For them this is the only safe procedure, since it 
does not call for the expenditure of any brain power. 
Considered from the standpoint of the individual 
wage worker or group of workers, the class struggle, 
they believe, holds good. Therefore, modern "Marx- 
ists" are "scientific" when they preach the class 
struggle and ignore the social struggle. 

This class appeal, this demand for the dictatorship 
of the proletariat, can find no justification in Marxian 
economics or in the laws of Social Evolution. It is 
both Utopian and thoroughly anti-social. 

If conflict is to be considered the motive power of 



108 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

Social Evolution, then not one, but three distinct 
conflicts must be studied and interpreted. Such a 
study would soon disclose that of the three, the class 
struggle as the '^ Marxists" understand it has the 
least historic significance or social justification. 
The two struggles that the ''Marxists" so completely 
ignore — the social struggle against a class and the 
active conflict raging between the several factions 
of the exploiting class — these reflect a real historic 
purpose and are fraught with far-reaching social 
significance. 

But not even these historic struggles affect the 
operations of Social Evolution. They are but inci- 
dents arising from the operations of the true laws of 
Social Evolution. 

A detailed study of modern Social Evolution fur- 
nishes convincing evidence of the soundness of this 
conclusion. 



CHAPTER XII 

EXPROPRIATING THE EXPROPRIATORS 

Marxists look for Socialism to be the outcome of 
the collapse of capitaHsm and the triumph of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat. But this theory is 
never brought to the front in normal times. Only 
under abnormal conditions of a character similar 
to those through which we are now passing is this 
theory very carefully removed from its camphor- 
sprinkled container and exposed to the hght. 

The Marxists seem to be conscious that in normal 
times this theory would jar and be hopelessly out of 
tune with the normal social processes. Therefore, 
for normal conditions, they have an entirely different 
theory. Sociahsm will be the outgrowth of indus- 
trial development. As an industry develops into a 
gigantic trust it will be ripe for sociahzation. They 
point to the steel trust, the harvester trust, the oil 
trust in illustration of their views. The growth and 
development of these gigantic industrial institutions 
is an outstanding fact. But where is the process of 
socialization? WTiere is there to be noted even as 
much as a tendency in this direction? The indus- 
trial giants appear quite safe from social molestation. 
The Marxists have guessed wrong. 



1\ 



110 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

We have seen that all recent social progress instead 

of weakening industrial capital has tended actually 

,„to strengthen it. Never in its history has industrial 

capital extracted a larger rate of Surplus Value 

than it does to-day. 

The question arises, if social progress strengthens 
industrial capital, what is the hope of abolishing capi- 
talism except through a proletarian revolution? 

We have laid down as a universal historic propo- 
sition that the impelling motive power behind all 
social change is the quest for a solution to the prob- 
lem of existence. New social systems appear as the 
gradual outgrowth of the old, not as the result of 
conflict between exploiters and exploited, but through 
harmony of interest of the majority as social beings; 
this majority is obtained through a combination of 
the powerful and the useful as against the remnant 
of the past and useless of the present. 

This formula constitutes a complete inversion of 
the Marxian theory in that it assumes that social 
progress is attained through harmony of interest of 
the exploiters and exploited. 

What in this respect are the lessons to be drawn 
from the social processes operating within capitalist 
society? Are there any indications of a conflict of 
interest in the camp of the exploiters? If there are, 
what is its historic or social significance? Where in 
capitalist society is there to be noted specific in- 
stances of social progress attained through harmony 
of interest of exploiters and exploited? 

Marx has made clear that the wealth annually 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 111 

created by a modern nation is the product of the 
combined efforts of every useful member of that 
nation. If society owned and controlled the social 
means of wealth production, the created wealth 
would belong to society. But society does not own 
these social tools. Their ownership is vested in 
private hands. These owners withhold from society 
a very large proportion of the socially created prod- 
ucts. But in order to realize the values contained 
within these products they must first be sold. A 
great many factors enter into this process, all of 
which bear upon the proportion of Surplus Value, 
falling to the share of the producing capitalist. 
As Karl Kautsky says: 

The surplus which the capitalist class appropriates is larger 
than is usually imagined. It covers not only the profits of the 
manufacturer, but many other items that are usually credited 
to the cost of production and exchange. It covers, for instance, 
rents, interest on loans, salaries, merchants' profits, taxes, etc. 
All these have to be subtracted from the surplus, i.e., the excess 
of the value of the product over the wages of the workingmen.' . . . 
The surplus produced by the proletariat becomes more and more 
the only source from which the whole capitalist class draws its 
income. 2 . . . However distasteful it may be to him, the capitalist 
is compelled to " divide " with the landowner and the State. And 
the share claimed by each of these increases from year to year.' 

It appears that the original robbers are not per- 
mitted to enjoy their ''swag" in peace. They are 
compelled to share it with innumerable groups of 

1 Class Struggle, p. 23. 

2 Ibid., p. 52. 

3 Ibid., p. 53. 
8 



112 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

their own class. Marx divided the Surplus Value 
into three main divisions: rent, interest and profit. 
Referring to this subject, Hillquit says: 

The three main forms of capitalist revenue, rent, interest and 
profits, spring as we have seen from the same source, the "sur- 
plus value" of the producing capitalists; and the shares of these 
three categories of income stand in inverse relation to each other. 
It is, of course, conceivable that rent, interest and profits may- 
rise simultaneously at the expense of the working class and the 
consumer, but they need not and do not always increase in equal 
proportions, and the total quantity of surplus value remaining 
equal an increase of rents or a rise of the rate of interest will 
signify a lowering of the profits, and vice versa. The three main 
economic divisions of capitalists dependent on the three forms of 
income mentioned, the rent- gathering landowner, the interest- 
drawing money lender and the profit-making manufacturer and 
merchant are thus by no means united in interest between them- 
selves. The money lender or banker exploits the mortgaged 
landowner and the borrowing industrial alike, while the owner 
of the factory site and store property exploits the manufacturer 
and merchant with equal thoroughness. Nor is the industrial 
group of the capitalist class always a unit in interests; the in- 
terests of the manufacturer usually run counter to those of the 
sellers, and vice versa; and even within the manufacturing class 
the interests of separate trades are frequently opposed to each 
other. 1 

No sooner is the victim robbed of his belongings 
than the thieves set to quarreling among themselves 
over the division of the booty. The question arises, 
is this quarrel between the thieves of any interest 
to the victim? There seems to be considerable 
difference of opinion among Sociahsts as to this. 
Says John Spargo: 

1 Socialism Theory and Practice, pp. 158-159. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 113 

But how the Surpkis Vahic is divided fimong landlords, money 
lenders, creditors, speculators and actual employers is a matter 
of absolutely no moment to the workers as a class. . . . The division 
of the Surplus Value wrung from the toil of the workers gives 
rise to much quarrel and strife within the ranks of the exploiting 
class, but the working class recognizes and vaguely and in- 
stinctively feels where it does not clearly recognize that it has 
no interest in these quarrels. All that interests it vitally is how to 
lessen the extent of the exploitation to ivhich it is subjected and how 
ultimately to end that exploitation altogether. That is the 
objective of the movement for the socialization of the means of 
life.' [My itaUcs.] 

So the working class is not interested in the quarrel 
between the capitalists, but is vitally interested in 
lessening the extent of exploitation to which it is 
subjected. But how is its exploitation to be lessened? 
Evidently at the point of production, where all ex- 
ploitation takes place. 

Thus does Spargo join Hillquit in the view that 
Socialism does not concern itself with consumable 
wealth, but only with productive capital. After re- 
lieving themselves of this common viewpoint one 
can see Hillquit and Spargo, arm and arm, entering 
the committee room to prepare "immediate de- 
mands" planks, most of which haven't the remotest 
bearing upon exploitation at the point of production, 
but nevertheless are offered to the working class on 
the ground that they are ''calculated to strengthen 
the working class in its fight for the realization of 
its ultimate aim and to increase its power of re- 
sistance against capitalist oppression." With this 

^ Socialism, pp. 2G8-2G9. 



114 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

task finished, Hillquit and Spargo no doubt turned 
to the more important work of drawing up the main 
platform based upon the scientific assertion that 
reforming of capitalism is not only useless, it is 
criminal. 

Such are the views and actions of the leading 
American Socialists. But neither Marx nor his im- 
mediate disciples are responsible for them. On the 
contrary, they held opinions in direct opposition to 
these views. Thus we read : 

It [the working class] compels legislative recognition of par- 
ticular interests of the workers by taking advantage of the divisions 
among the houregoisie itself. Thus the ten-hour bill in England 
was carried. Altogether, collisions between the classes of the old 
society further in many ways the course of development of the pro- 
letariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant 
battle. At first with the aristocracy, later on with those portions 
of the bourgeoisie itself whose interests have become antagonistic to 
the progress of industry.^ [My italics.] 

In this quarrel between the exploiters Marx saw 
great possibilities for the exploited. 

SaysKautsky: 

"It was not for nothing that Marx and Engels 
fought the use of the phrase, 'reactionary mass/ 
because it tended to conceal the antagonism that 
exists between different factions of the ruling class, 
which may well he very important in securing the 
progress of the working class." ^ (My italics.) But 
modern "Marxists," despite the lessons of recent 
social evolution, are not interested in those antagon- 

' Communist Manifesto, p. 27. 
2 Road to Power, p. 11. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 115 

isms. The oiily antagonism which concerns them is 
the antagonism which does not concern social evolu- 
tion. And this is the scientific movement that 
claims to be based upon the science and laws of social 
evolution! 

It becomes necessary that we make a study of 
modern Social Evolution and observe, if possible, to 
what degree it has been influenced by conflict of 
interests in the ranks of the exploiters and harmony 
of interest between exploiters and exploited. 

Although the operations of Social Evolution in 
capitaHst society are bewildering in their com- 
plexity, it is yet possible to discern that they are 
working out in four well-defined forms: (1) Social 
and industrial reforms; {2) public ownership of the 
means of transportation and communication; {3) di- 
rect taxation; (4) governmental activity in the distri- 
bution of consumable wealth. 

Marx and Engels looked to England because of 
her advanced industrial development to be the first 
nation to be won over to Socialism. Later on it be- 
came the fashion among Sociahsts to point a pro- 
phetic finger to the United States. Time proved both 
to be mere guesses. The first social tendencies mani- 
fested themselves not in industrially developed coun- 
tries, but in industrially backward countries Uke 
Germany, Australia, New Zealand. Why? These 
social activities concerned themselves with prac- 
tically every social question except the means of 
production and exploitation at the point of produc- 
tion. Why? Here is the answer: 



IIG THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

The advanced stage of the capitahst mode of pro- 
duction, distribution and exchange in England and 
the United States meant for the entire people of 
those countries a far greater advance in the direc- 
tion of a solution to the problem of existence than 
had been attained by any other nation. As an in- 
evitable corollary of this social progress the rate of 
exploitation at the point of production in England 
and the United States was beyond anything ever 
known. 

In Germany feudahsm Ungered. It could not so 
easily be shaken off, because Germany possessed 
every element favorable to its retention. Slowly but 
surely, however, feudalism, even in Germany, was 
compelled to yield because it lacked the one element 
possessed by bourgeois society — greater security in 
the means of life. 

The feudal form of society left Germany far behind 
the capitalist nations in the rate of progress towards 
a solution to the problem of existence. The capitahst 
system of society marked a tremendous forward 
step in the direction towards a solution to the basic 
problem of life — the elimination of uncertainty in 
the means of existence. 

The capitalist mode of production gradually took 
root in Germany. Its advantages over the feudal 
mode of production soon became apparent and made 
itself felt in greater abundance for all within the 
nation. At about 1870, Germany turned its back 
upon the past and gave itself over unreservedly to 
the future. How to develop the new mode of pro- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 117 

duction to the highest possible degree became the 
national problem. Wliat did the thought of the 
highest possible degree evoke in the German mind? 
WTiy, none other than the standards set by England 
and the United States. These two countries were 
creating wealth upon an unprecedented scale. Was 
it possible for Germany to duplicate their successes? 
This problem offered many difficulties. In the first 
place, the other countries had the best of the start 
by a good many years. Then there were the ge- 
ographical limitations as well as the great handicap 
of poverty in certain indispensable natural resources. 

Wliat were the chances of overcoming these well- 
nigh insuperable handicaps? They appeared slim 
indeed. Private initiative created the stupendous 
wealth of the other capitalist nations. Could private 
initiative prove equal to the task of overcoming the 
handicaps under which the German nation labored? 
An attempt soon proved the futility of the hope. 
There was but one way left open by which to meet 
the efficiency of the other capitalist countries, and 
that was by greater efficiency. And this greater effi- 
ciency the Government alone was capable of supply- 
ing. Thanks to the more advanced capitalist coun- 
tries, efficient machinery of production was readily 
obtainable. German private capital was equal to 
the task of installing the most efficient means of 
production that the genius of the more advanced 
nations had succeeded in developing. 

The rate of exploitation at the point of production 
increased in proportion, but the social welfare had 



118 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

been advanced inasmuch as marked progress had 
been made in the direction of a solution to the prob- 
lem of existence. 

But the standards of England and the United 
States had not as yet been reached. Germany was 
still far behind in total accumulated wealth. There 
was only one way of overtaking the leaders and that 
was by greater efficiency in production. Wealth 
production must be multiplied and intensified. The 
best brains within the German nation concentrated 
their attention upon a study of this vital problem. 
From the mass of data gathered on the subject, the 
conclusive lesson was drawn that the physical and 
mental condition of a worker profoundly influenced 
his powers of production. It was found that the 
physically and mentally backward worker could not 
compete against the productive powers of a worker 
who was developed physically and mentally. 

This fact once established, there arose the prac- 
tical problem of how to raise the productive effi- 
ciency of the great mass of workers through a general 
rise in the level of physical and mental development. 

Better and more prolonged childhood training was 
agitated. Better working conditions for factory 
employees, a shorter work day, health protection 
and disease prevention; in short, all measures cal- 
culated to improve the physical and mental develop- 
ment of the masses were proposed with the specific 
purpose of raising the productive powers of the 
German nation. To employers conclusive evidence 
was furnished which purported to prove that greatly 



[THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 119 

increased profits would flow from the improved 
factory and working conditions. Nevertheless, the 
proposed reforms were not universally adopted by 
factory owners. Those who were willing to install 
the new conditions feared that, should the optimistic 
promises of increased profits fail to materialize, they 
would be ruined through inability to compete with 
their less scrupulous competitors. 

How was this situation to be met? Should the 
shortsightedness of a group be permitted to operate 
against the social interests of the German nation? 
Was the German nation to be prevented from taking 
this great stride forward in the direction towards a 
solution to the problem of existence by failing to 
take advantage of the newly discovered means of 
multiplying its wealth-creating powers? This would 
be against public policy and therefore could not be 
permitted. The new method of increasing wealth 
production must be made compulsory through the 
powers of the State. 

Social and industrial reforms were initiated as a 
means of securing to the German nation the increased 
productivity which is the consequence of a phys- 
ically and mentally developed working class. Re- 
forms once initiated were never rescinded. The 
benefits to which they gave rise were so obvious, 
that there was no question of rescinding, but rather 
one of constant expansion. 

The concrete results flowing from the practical 
operations of these reforms were as follows: (1) A 
long step forward in the direction towards a solution 



120 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

to the problem of existence because of greatly stimulated 
wealth jjroduction; (2) an increased rate of exploita- 
tion at the point of production as an inevitable 
corollary of an increased rate of wealth production; 
(3) a marked improvement in the social status of 
the masses and the great benefits flowing from the 
physical and intellectual development made possible by 
social and industrial reforms; (^) the elimination 
of the capitalist principle — profit — and the substitu- 
tion of the Socialist principle — service — in the sup- 
plying of the several needs undertaken by the State, 
such as education, health protection, etc., etc. Thus 
the interests of the powerful and useful operated against 
the element that rendered those services for profit. 

With the increased production that resulted from 
the greater efficiency of the German masses, the 
problem of transportation and communication came 
to the front. Productive capital required efficient 
transportation and communication. There must be 
no interruption in the flow of raw materials to the 
factories and in the transportation of the finished 
product to the market. Production had been ren- 
dered efficient by thorough systematizing and ehmi- 
nation of waste. 

The cost of circulation of commodities is a charge 
on production. The time consumed in circulation 
has a direct bearing on the turnover and therefore 
on the profits of productive capital. Productive 
capital is as interested in efficiency in transportation 
as it is in efficiency in production. 

Private capital failed to bring the railroads up to 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETAriON OF HISTORY 121 

the same standard of efficiency that private capital 
accompHshed in production. This inefficiency in 
transportation acted as a fetter on production and 
in large measure negatived the benefits accruing from 
the increased efficiency shown by the physically and 
mentally bettered working class. 

This situation was inimical to social interests. 
The German State, in the interest of social progress, 
was compelled to take over the railroads and thus 
bring them up to the same high plane of efficiency 
attained by productive capital. 

Here we have one more instance of the interests 
of productive capital coinciding with the social in- 
terests of the majority, both operating against the 
group who obtain profits through their private owner- 
ship of the means of transportation. The proved 
inefficiency of private ownership compelled its elim- 
ination. The profit principle in the means of trans- 
portation was thus ehminated in the German nation 
and replaced by the social principle based upon 
efficient service. 

The third outstanding form taken by modern 
Social Evolution is that of direct taxation. 

The economic and social functions undertaken by 
a State require capital. Society cannot assume an 
economic function without being in a position to 
finance it. How does society obtain the necessary 
funds? Direct taxation as a phenomenon of modern 
Social Evolution has proved a most effective means 
of financing all social endeavors. To the capitalist 
class accrue the bulk of the benefits of the increased 



122 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

productivity of a physically and mentally developed 
working class. The capitalist class must therefore 
stand the cost entailed in the process of improving 
the efficiency of the human machine. This is accom- 
plished through the principle of direct taxation. 

The most important fact to be noted in connection with collcc- 
tivist taxation is that it forms an essential, indispensable part of 
the whole scheme of collectivist efforts on behalf of the individual. 
, . . Public health, education and recreation, public housing and 
food supplj'-, may all be considered from the economic standpoint 
as sound investments which in the end will produce a profit to 
the nation and to all classes of the nation, including capitalists 
and property owners. But the financial returns on such "in- 
vestments" are very indirect, slow and even uncertain, from the 
point of view of those economic classes whose profits from such 
Government expenditures is most indirect. It is therefore neces- 
sary to consider most Government outlay for such purposes 
rather as "Communistic" expenditures for the welfare of the 
masses than as economic investments. Therefore, the money 
to support these Government activities must be secured rather 
through taxation than through loans. Undoubtedly, govern- 
mental housing and governmental control of the food supply in 
their present stage of development should be considered rather 
as merely Socialistic than as Communistic enterprises. For at 
the present time such activities are made to pay their way. 
At any rate, public activities in regard to health, education, 
recreation and the development of science and art are not ex- 
pected to "pay" from a purely financial standpoint, but only 
from the point of view of the economic profit they should bring 
to the nation as a whole after the lapse of a considerable period 
of time. 

A large part of the proceeds of the graduated direct taxation 
[chiefly income and inheritance taxes] of recent years has been 
used for the social or collectivist purpose of raising the economic 
level of industrial efficiency of that part of the population which has 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 123 

been most in need of such assistance. Such taxation had reached 
a very high level in many countries; for example, Great Britain, 
Germany and Australia before the war. 

The "taxation of the rich for the benefit of the poor" had so 
well demonstrated its practicability and value to the nation by 
May, 1914, that even the London Times indorsed the radical 
extension of the principle in the new budget. The London 
Nation remarked that this method of improving the national effi- 
ciency through raising the earning power and the physical and 
intellectual forces of the nation was by that time approved by all 
political parties.^ 

Until but a few years ago the indirect form of 
taxation was the principal source of all Government 
revenue. The two favorite forms of indirect taxation 
were customs and internal duties. Both are borne 
chiefly by the masses, as they are a levy upon articles 
of consumption. The capitalist class not only re- 
tained all the Surplus Value extracted from society, 
but unloaded all expenses of the Government upon 
society to be met out of the portion of the wealth 
falling to society. 

As long as this condition prevailed society could 
do nothing towards improving the condition of its 
members. Society could not pull itself up by its 
own boot straps. Then came the change. Direct 
taxation of income and inheritance was adopted. 

The House of Representatives, in its report^ states 
that Great Britain before the European war, during 
her fiscal year ending March 31, 1914, collected from 

1 From chapter on " Taxation of Capital and Industry for Social 
Purposes," Stale Socialism, Pro and Con, by Walling and Laidler. 
(My italics.) 

^ Congressional Record, 1916, p. 922. 



124 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

income taxes $230,000,000 and from inheritance 
taxes $132,000,000. Great Britain's total revenue 
was $020,000,000, and of this amount, taxes from 
income and inheritance yielded $302,000,000, or 58 
per cent of the total. In other words, Great Britain 
in times of peace collected 58 per cent of her revenue 
from the taxation of incomes and inheritances. This 
58 per cent of governmental expense under the old 
form of taxation would have been paid mainly out 
of the wages of the working class. The income tax 
saved this huge sum for the masses and took it from 
the Surplus Value extracted by the capitalist class. 

Since the war the sums raised by Great Britain 
through the income tax have increased by over 
300 per cent. 

Germany made very heavy demands on the in- 
comes of the capitalist class. But it is not to the 
Reichstag wdth its strong Sociahst representation 
that this was principally due. On the contrary, it 
was in the states and cities where the Socialists were 
practically powerless that the heaviest income levies 
were made. In the larger cities the income tax was 
usually added to the State tax and very often it was 
twice as great. The cities of northern Germany 
raised from 50 to 77 per cent of their revenue through 
the income tax, while the German states have been 
raising from 60 to 80 per cent of their taxes in this 
way and the proportion has been constantly in- 
creasing. 

Here in the United States the income-tax prin- 
ciple has been slow to take hold, in spite of our 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 125 

democracy. The rate adopted in 1914 when the 
law was first passed has since been greatly increased. 
It is reported that for 1917 the capitahst class had 
to return $300,000,000 to the national treasury. 
For 1918 the Carnegies, the Rockefellers and the 
Morgans returned $650,000 out of every $1,000,000 
they pilfered from the people. The Steel Trust was 
compelled to give up in gold part of its 1918 "steal" 
to the tune of 1233,465,000. The estimated yield 
from the income tax for 1918 is figured at |4,000,- 
000,000. 

All this has hardly raised a ripple in Socialist cir- 
cles. Had the steel workers gone out on strike and 
lost millions of dollars in wages in an effort to obtain 
a 5 or 10 per cent raise, their success in wresting 
back that much Surplus Value would have dehghted 
every Sociahst in the country, but were the workers 
to succeed in obtaining hold of the steel trust and 
thus secure for themselves ''the full product of their 
toil," it would be the occasion for another storm 
within the party. Such is the science upon which 
Socialists base their activities. 

If the Socialities are indifferent to these millions 
upon millions returned by the capitalists of the 
country as part of the Surplus Value extracted from 
the people, the capitalist class is not. It will be very 
happy to capitahze this indifference to obtain a very 
radical reduction in the tax rate once the war emer- 
gency is removed. 

While the income-tax principle has come to stay, 
the extent to which it will be applied depends upon a 



•126 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

variety of circumstances not the least of which is an 
intelHgent comprehension of its historic significance. 
We have now reviewed three outstanding forms 
assumed by modern Social Evolution and have ob- 
served how they all operate in response to a common 
purpose, to multiply production and thus advance 
in the direction towards a solution to the problem 
of existence. 

Social and industrial reforms improved the efR- 
ciency of the human machine and thus made it 
more productive. Social ownership of the means of 
transportation and communication was made neces- 
sary because production was hampered by ineffi- 
ciency in these departments. Direct taxation made 
possible the carrying out of the above improvements. 
We have now to consider the fourth phenomenon of 
modern Social Evolution — social concern in the 
distribution of consumable wealth. 

Distribution of consumable wealth is the aim and 
end of all social change; the effort to solve the basic 
problem of security in the means of life. All social 
changes which seek to multiply production are not 
an end in themselves, but a means to an end. They 
are set in motion in response to the problem of dis- 
y — tribution. All history is but a record of man's striv- 
ings for a solution to this problem. The capitalist 
mode of production was evolved in response to this 
problem. Social Evolution is operating to obtain 
for society the maximum distribution of the wealth 
the capitalist mode of production is capable of 
creating. Inefficiency in production reacts on dis- 



/^ 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 127 

tribiition; inefRciency in distribution reacts on pro- 
duction. Therefore, social concern in distribution 
springs from a double motive: (1) maximum effi- 
ciency in the distribution of the socially created 
wealth; (2) the stimulation of efficiency in produc- 
tion through efficiency in distribution. 

How does this social concern in the distribution of 
consumable wealth react on the interests of the 
capitalist class? The study we have thus far made 
of the phenomena of modern social evolution shows 
them to be operating in harmony with the interests 
of the owners of the means of production. Is this 
latest phenomenon of modern Social Evolution — 
social concern in distribution — inimical to the interests 
of the capitalist owners of the means of production? 
It would require no little courage to answer this 
question in the affirmative. The owners of the 
means of production live off profit. Profit or Surplus 
Value though obtained at the point of production 
must be realized at the point of consumption. There 
can be no profits unless products are sold. Certainty 
of sale makes for certainty of production and there- 
fore not only for profits, but for multiplied profits 
through multiplied production. Social assumption 
of the function of distribution makes for efficiency 
in distribution and therefore operates in harmony 
with the interests of the owners of the means of 
production. 

The capitalist mode of distribution or exchange 

based upon the profit principle is inefficient and 

therefore detrimental both to the interests of the 
9 



128 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

owners of the means of production and the vast 
majority in society as consumers. 

The group of capitaHsts functioning in the sphere 
of circulation who obtain their profits through the 
purchase and sale of commodities have proved ineffi- 
cient and thus a fetter to social progress. Social 
Evolution in response to the harmony of interests 
of the powerful and useful is operating to eliminate 
the useless middleman, speculator, merchant, trader, 
etc. Social Evolution has nothing in store for this 
group of parasites except oblivion. They hamper 
the full development of the capitaHst mode of pro- 
duction and therefore are inimical to social progress. 

But all this has little social significance to Marx- 
ists. As Hillquit puts it: Socialism is not concerned 
with consumable wealth, but only with productive 
capital. Wliy, because ]Marx devoted a very con- 
siderable portion of the third volume of Das Kapital 
in an effort to prove that the merchant is indis- 
pensable to the capitalist mode of production and 
therefore cannot be eliminated except through the 
complete abolition of the capitalist system of 
society. 

Marx's analysis of the merchant as an indispens- 
able factor in the capitalist mode of production is so 
important to our study that we deem it necessary 
to quote him extensively upon this subject. 

The total capital of society [says Marx] exists always in part 
in commodities on the market about to be converted into money, 
and this part is naturally made up of ever-changing elements 
and is continually changing in quantity. Another part exists 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 129 

as money on the market, ready to be converted into commodities. 
Th(»e portions of the total capital are peri)ctually passing 
through these metamorphoses. To the extent that this function 
of capital in the process of circulation becomes a special function 
of indeipendcnl capital and becomes an established service as- 
signed by division of labor to some particular species of capital- 
ists, the commodity capital becomes commercial or financial 
capital. . . 

The dealer in commodities, as a capitalist, appears first on 
the market as the representative of a certain sum of money, 
which he advances in his capacity as a capitalist. He desires 
to transform this sum of money from its original value x into x 
4- and x, that is, the original sum plus his profit. But it is evi- 
dent that his capital must first enter the market in the shape of 
money, not only on account of his capacity as a capitalist in 
general, but also as a trader in commodities in particular. For he 
does not produce any commodities. He merely trades in them; 
he acts as a middleman in their movements, and in order to be 
able to trade in them, he must first buy them, must be the 
owner of money — capital. . . . The function of selling . . . has 
been transferred from the manufacturer to the merchant, has 
been converted into the 'particular business of the merchant, 
while it used to be a function which the producer had to perform 
after completing the process of its production. , . . The difference 
is only that this incidental function of the producer is now 
established as the exclusive business of a special kind of capitalists, 
of merchants, and becomes the independent business of a special 
investment of capital. ... It is evident then that commodity- 
capital assumes in commercial capital the form of an independent 
class of capital through the fact that the merchant advances 
money-capital. This money-capital serves its purpose as capital 
only by attending exclusively to the conversion of commodity- 
capital into money-capital, and it accomplishes this by the con- 
tinual purchase and sale of commodities. . . . 

Merchants' capital is simply capital performing its functions 
in the sphere of circulation. The process of circulation is a phase 



130 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

of the total process of reproduction. But no value is produced 
in the process of circulation, and, therefore, no Surplus Value. 
Nothing takes place there but changes of form of the same mass 
of values. In fact, nothing occurs there but the metamorphosis 
of commodities and this has nothing to do either with the crea- 
tion or with the transformation of values. // Surplus Value is 
realized by the sale of the produced commodities, it is only because 
that Surplus Value already exidcd in them. . . . Before the com- 
modities bought by the industrial capitalist are taken back to 
market as salable commodities, they pass through the process 
of production, in which that portion of their price which shall 
be realized as profit must be created. But it is different with the 
trading merchant. The commodities are in his hands only so 
long as they are in the process of circulation. He merely con- 
tinues their sale, the realization of their price begun by the pro- 
ductive capitalist and therefore he does not cause them to pass 
through any intermediate process, in which they can once more 
absorb new Surplus Value. . . . How does the merchants' capital 
manage to appropriate its share of the Surplus Value or profit 
produced by the productive capital? Just as the industrial 
capital makes profits by selling labor embodied and realized in 
commodities for which it has not paid any equivalent, so the 
merchants' capital makes profits by not paying the productive 
capital for all the unpaid labor incorporated in the commodities 
. . . while in selling it demands payment for this unpaid portion 
still contained in the commodities and not paid for by itself. 
The relation of the merchants' capital to the Surplus Value is 
different from that of the industrial capital. The industrial 
capital produces Surplus Value by the direct appropriation of 
the unpaid labor of others. The merchants' capital, on the other 
hand, appropriates a portion of this surphis value by having this 
portion transferred from (lie industrial capital to itself. . . . 

Let us suppose that the total industrial capital advanced for 
one year is 720C plus 180v equals 900 (say million p. st.) and that 
s' equals 100%. The product is then valued at 720c plus 180v 
plus 180 s. Now let us call tliis product the produced com- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 131 

modity-capital, C, Its value or its price of production (both are 
identical for the total social commodity-capital) is then 1080 
and the rate of profit for the total social capital of 900 is 20%. 
These 20% constitute, according to our previous analysis, the 
average rate of profit, since the Surplus Value is not calculated 
in this instance on this or that capital of some particular com- 
position, but on the average composition of the total industrial 
capital. In short, C equals 1080, and the rate of profit equals 
20%. Now let us further assume that aside from these 900 of 
industrial capital there are invested 100 of merchants' ca^^ital 
which share in the profit just as the industrial capital does, in 
proportion to their magnitude. According to our assumption, 
the total capital consists of 900 industrial plus 100 commercial 
equal 1000, so that the commercial capital is 1/10 of the whole. 
Therefore it participates to the extent of l/lO in the total Sur- 
plus Value of 180 and by this means secures a profit at the rate 
of 18%. Actually, then, the profit remaining to be distributed 
among the other 9/10 of the total capital is only 1G2, which 
amounts likewise to 18% on the total capital of 900. In other 
words, the price at which C is sold by the owners of the industrial 
capital of 900 to the dealers is 720c plus 180v plus 162s equal 
1062. Now, if the dealer adds his average profit of 18% on his 
capital of 100, he sells the commodities at 1062 plus 18 equals 
1080, which is their price of production, or from the point of view 
of the total commodity-capital their value, although he makes 
his profit only in and by the circulation and only by an excess 
of his selling price over his purchase price. But nevertheless he 
does not sell the commodities above their value nor above their 
price of production just because he had bought them from the 
industrial capitalist below their value or below their price of 
production. 

The merchants' capital, then, plays a determining role in the 
formation of the average rate of profit in proportion to its pro 
rata magnitude of the total capital. Hence, if we say that the 
average rate of profit is 18% it would be 20%, were it not for 



132 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

the fact that 1/10 of the total capital is merchants' capital, 
which implies a reduction of the rate of profit 1/10.* 

The above rather lengthy summary proves how 
clear was Marx's understanding of the ''dividing 
up" process going on within the capitalist class. 
The original exploiters of Surplus Value — the pro- 
ducing capitalists — must constantly yield up a part 
of their profit. Every trader, be he wholesaler, 
broker, speculator, retailer or merchant of any sort — 
each and all of these obtain their profits by taking 
from the exploiter a part of his original stealings. 
The amount falling to the merchant is directly de- 
pendent upon the magnitude of his investment. The 
participation of his capital means a falling off in the 
rate of profit for the producing capitalists. 

Would it be correct then to assume that there is a 
clash of interests between producing capital and 
trading capital? It is difficult to see how one can 
escape this conclusion. But strange as it may seem, 
such was not Marx's conclusion. His analysis of 
merchants' capital and merchants' profits not only 
failed to support this conclusion, but, on the con- 
trary, aimed to upset it. For he says later on that: 

Commercial capital is nothing but the commodity-capital of 
the producer, which has to pass through its transformation into 
money and to perform its function of commodity-capital on the 
market. The operations of the merchant are really nothing but 
operations which must be performed under all circumstances in 
order to convert the commodity-capital of the producer into 

1 Das Kapital, vol. iii. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 133 

money-capital, operations which promote the function of the 
commodity-capital in tlie process of circulation and reproduc- 
tion. If a clerk of the producer were to attend exclusively to the 
sale and also with the purchase instead of an independent 
merchant, this connection would not be obscured for a moment. 
... If the merchants' capital does not exceed its necessary pro- 
portions it may be assumed (1) that as a result of division of 
labor the capital devoted exclusively to buying and selling (and 
this includes not only the money required for the purchase of 
commodities, but also the money which must be invested in the 
labor required for running the business of the merchant in the 
constant capital of the merchant, storerooms, transportation, 
etc.) is smaller than it would be if the industrial capitalist had 
to carry on the entire commercial part of the business himself; 
(2) that the exclusive occupation of the merchant with this 
business enables the producer to convert his commodities more 
rapidly into money, and permits the commodity-capital itself 
to pass more quickly through its metamorphosis than it would 
in the hands of the producer; that looking upon the entire 
merchants' capital in proportion to the industrial capital, one 
turnover of the merchants' capital may represent not only the 
turnover of many capitals in one sphere of production, but the 
turnovers of a number of capitals in different spheres of produc- 
tion. So long as merchants' capital remains within the boun- 
daries in which it is necessary the only difference is that this 
division of the functions of capital reduces the time exclusively 
needed for the process of circulation, that less additional cap- 
ital is advanced for this purpose and that the loss of the total 
profits represented by the profits of merchants' capital is smaller 
than it would have been otherwise. If in the above example 
a capital of 720c plus I80v plus 180s assisted by a merchants' 
capital of a 100 leaves a profit of 1G2, or 18%, for the industrial 
capitalist or, in other words, implies a deduction of 18, then the 
additional capital required without the assistance of the inde- 
pendent merchants' capital would probably be 200, and the 
total advance to be made by the industrial capitalist would be 



134 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

1100 instead of 900, which, with Surplus Value of 180, would 
mean a rate of profit of only 16 4/11%.' 

In this fashion does Marx prove to his own satis- 
faction that there is no clash of interest between 
productive and merchants' capital. How can there 
be when they are one and the same thing? Produc- 
tive capital itself instituted this division of labor 
because, Hke the division of labor in production, it 
has helped to increase the profit rate. Marx holds 
that the operations of the merchant are really noth- 
ing but operations which must be performed under 
all circumstances, and as the cost for this service is 
less when the merchant performs it, he is in reality 
a benefactor to producing capital. Wliat Marx 
sought to prove through his analysis of merchants' 
capital and merchants' profits was that the profit 
rate on merchants' capital is identically the same 
as on productive capital, and participates in propor- 
tion to the magnitude of its capital. He, in this 
manner, proved that merchants' profit is not the 
result of selling goods above their value, but at 
their value. Thus he proved once more that Sur- 
plus Value is extracted at but one point, the point 
of production. 

A closer examination of the data Marx himseK has 
furnished makes impossible the acceptance of his 
theory that there is harmony of interest between 
producing and merchants' capital, that the merchant 
is indispensable to the producing capitalist. Marx 
holds that the capitalist mode of production is condi- 

' Das Kapilal, vol. ill. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 135 

tioned on production for exchange, commerce on a large 
scale instead of with a few individual customers, and 
this requires also a merchant who does not buy for the 
satisfaction of his own individual wants, but concen- 
trates the transactions of many buyers in one commercial 
transaction.^ What does all this seek to imply? The 
clear implication is that profit on merchants' capital 
will not and cannot be eliminated except by first 
eliminating profit on productive capital. In other 
words, the entire profit system will be eliminated at 
one blow and the blow will be aimed at the profits 
created at the point of production. According to 
Marx, merchants' capital is destined to draw profits 
just so long as productive capital draws profits. 
Both must die out at the same time. This is so or- 
dained in spite of the historical fact that merchants* 
profit is the oldest form of profit and that modern- 
capitalist profit is the very youngest form of profit. 

Merchants' profit is, in fact, the parent to produc- 
tive profit; nevertheless, according to Marx, the 
parent will not die except through the death of its 
child. While historically merchants' capital has 
passed through many changes, as Marx himself 
makes clear, its role in present-day society is fixed 
and it will enjoy its share of profits as long as there 
are profits to be shared. 

Following Marx in his study of the history of 
merchants' profit, we find that merchants' capital 
represents historically the oldest free existence of 
capital. Marx says: 

^ Das Kapital, vol. iii, p. 385. 



136 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

On the basis of every mode of production commerce promotes 
the production of surplus products destined for exchange, for 
the purpose of increasing the enjoyments of ivealth of the prodvicers 
(who are here understood to be the owners of the products). 
Commerce impregnates production more and more with the 
character of a production for exchange. Capital in the capacity 
of capital appears first in the process of cii'culation. In the proc- 
ess of circulation money first develops into capital. In the 
circulation the products first assume the character of exchange 
values of commodities and money. Capital can and must form 
in the process of circulation before it learns to control the ex- 
tremes, that is, the various spheres of production between which 
circulation intervenes as a mediator. The circulation of money 
and commodities may act as an intermediary between spheres 
of production of widely different organization, whose internal 
structure is still predominantly adopted to the production of 
use-values. This independent status of the process of circula- 
tion by which various spheres of production are connected by 
means of a third link expresses two facts. On the one hand it 
shows that the circulation has not yet seized hold of production, 
but as yet regards it as an existing fact. On the other hand, it 
shows that the process of production has not yet absorbed circu- 
lation and made a phase of production of it. . . . 

Within the capitalist mode of production — that is, as soon as 
capital has seized hold of production and given to it a wholly 
changed and specific form — merchants' capital appears merely 
as a capital with a specific function. But in aU previous modes 
of production, and so much the more production ministers to 
the direct wants of the producers themselves, merchants' capital 
appears as the capital which performs the function of capital. . . . 
Within capitalist production the merchants' capital is reduced 
from its former independent existence to a special phase in the 
investment of capital in general and the compensation of profits 
reduces its rate of profit to the general average. Then it serves 
only as an agent of productive capital. . . . Where merchants' 
capital still predommates we find backward conditions. . . . The 



THE SOCIAL INTFAilTtETATION OF HISTORY 137 

incIcpcii(l(Mit (levi'lopnuMit of inorchants' cai)i(nl stands, therefore, 
in, an invcri^c ruiio to the general economic development of society.^ 
[My italics.] 

This, then, is the history of merchants' capital as 
stated by Marx. Wliat does it teach us? The out- 
standing fact is the continuous decHne of merchants' 
capital as a factor in economic and social develop- 
ment. Merchants' capital profited most when pro- 
duction was crudest and with the development of 
the capitalist mode of production it became subor- 
dinated to industrial capital, accompanied by a 
steady decline in its share of the profits. 

What interests us at this point is this: Has this 
dechne now come to a sudden halt and will there 
be no further decline in the status of the merchant 
and therefore in his share of profits as long as the 
profit system lasts? Such appears to be the con- 
clusion arrived at by Marx. But do the facts justify 
his conclusion? Let us examine the situation a little 
more closely. 

Marx tells us that the economic development of 
society stands in inverse ratio to the independent 
development of merchants' capital. As society ad- 
vanced, merchants' profit receded. Has economic 
development reached its utmost limits under the 
capitalist mode of production, is the question which 
must be answered. If it has not, will its develop- 
ment be accompanied by a decline in the profit fall- 
ing to the share of merchants' capital; in other 
words, will modern economic evolution be consistent 

^ Das Kapilal, vol. iii, p. 382. 



138 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

with past history, despite the fact that ''merchants' 
capital is but industrial capital in the sphere of 
circulation" ? 

The first question is easily answered. We know 
that economic evolution is advancing constantly. 
Every advance means an increase in the rate of 
profit. But what obstacles must be met and over- 
come in the process of economic advance with its 
inevitable increase in the profit rate? This is a funda- 
mentally vital question upon which the views of 
none but an expert should be given credence. For- 
tunately for us, this question has already been 
answered by Karl Mai-x. 

Bearing in mind the fact that all Surplus Value is 
created at the point of production and that it is 
realized only through the sale of the created values 
and that the costs entailed in this process help to 
depress the rate of profit, we can readily understand 
Marx's formula^ that "the larger the merchants' 
capital in proportion to the industrial capital, the 
smaller is the rate of industrial profit, and vice 
versa." Thus does Marx himself furnish the evi- 
dence which proves that it is to the advantage of in- 
dustrial capital to reduce the relation of merchants' 
capital to production. At another place ^ he notes 
that the industrial capitalist endeavors to limit 
these expenses of circulation to a minimum, just as 
he does with his expenses for constant capital. 

Marx's views in detail are: 



^ Dns Kapital, vol. iii, p. 339. 
2 Ibid., p. 353. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 139 

The mere functions of capital in the sphere of circulation — 
the operations which the industrial capitalist must perform, 
first in order to realize the value of his commodities, and, sec- 
ondly, in order to reconvert this value into elements of produc- 
tion; operations which promote the metamorphosis of tho 
conmiodity-capital C-M-C, the acts of seUing and buying — 
produce neither value nor Surplus Value. The time required for 
tliis purpose, objectively so far as the commodities, subjectively 
so far as the capitalist is concerned, creates barriers to the produo 
lion of value and Surphcs Value. What is true of the meta- 
morphosis of commodity-capital in general is, as a matter of 
course, not in the least altered by the fact that a part of it may 
assume the shape of commercial capital or that the operations, 
by which the metamorphosis of commodity-capital is promoted, 
may become the particular business of a special class of cap- 
itahsts. . . . The greater the number of turnovers of the industrial 
capital as a whole, the gi'eater is the mass of profits, the mass of 
anrmaUy produced Siu-plus Value and therefore the rate of 
profit. ... If the same industrial capital, under otherwise equal 
circumstances, particularly with the same organic composition, 
is turned over four times per year instead of twice, it produces 
twice as much Surplus Value and consequently profits. . . . The 
turnover of industrial capital is the combination of its time of 
production and time of circulation.^ [My itaUcs.] 

Such is Marx's answer to our question. The sphere 
of circulation (and it is here where the merchant 
functions) acts as a check on production and there- 
fore on the profits of producing capital. It is to the 
interest of producing capital as well as to economic 
and Social Evolution that the cost of circulation be 
constantly decreased. This need is inimical to the 
interests of the merchant. The progress of industry 
means retrogression for the merchant. Productive 

1 Das Kapital, vol. iii, p. 339. 



140 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

capital uses the merchant for but one purpose, to 
help increase the rate of profit, and it wall discard 
the merchant when he proves a hindrance to greater 
profits. We are forced to these conclusions by the 
data Marx himself has furnished. 

Why, then, did Marx fail to arrive at this con- 
clusion? Why did he, in fact, arrive at the very 
opposite conclusion? The answer must be sought 
in Marx's understanding of the operations of Social 
Evolution. Surplus Value is extracted at the point of 
production and reahzed at the point of consumption, 
and as during Marx's time more could be realized 
through the intervention of the merchant than without 
him, the merchant was therefore inevitable as long as 
production yielded Surplus Value. Such was Marx's 
conclusion. Every phase of the profit system would 
be with us until the day that would witness its sudden 
and complete collapse in its entirety. Exploitation 
arises at the point of production; it can be aboUshed 
nowhere except at the point of production. Such 
were the principles evolved by Marx from his studies 
of Social Evolution and such are the principles that 
guide the activities of the Marxists of to-day. 

Marx's beUef in the permanency of the merchant 
in capitaHst society is one more proof that he did not 
understand the laws of Social Evolution and there- 
fore could have no knowledge of their operations. 

Had he understood the true laws of Social Evolu- 
tion, had he recognized that all social progress is 
registered not through conflict at the point of pro- 
duction, but in response to the higher economic 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRET AT ION OF HISTORY 141 

interests of the majority as social beings or con- 
sumers, he would not have looked for Social Evolu- 
tion to manifest itself through the class struggle at 
the point of production, but through the social 
struggle at the point of consumption. 

The development of the capitalist mode of pro- 
duction, which is of special benefit to the producing 
capitalists, but which reacts to the benefit of society 
as a whole, demands the suppression of the merchant 
as an exploiter of society. Social evolution has com- 
pletely disproved Marx's theory of the permanency 
of the merchant in modern society. The merchant is 
being rapidly displaced because it is to the interest 
of the producing capitalist and the consuming public 
and in hne with social progress. To productive 
capital he acts as a check on turnover and therefore 
to profit. Productive capital has eliminated uncer- 
tainty and anarchy in production. The merchant 
has retained them in circulation. The producing 
capitalist must pay for the anarchy in circulation. 
The waste is appalling. Crisis, the bugbear of pro- 
duction, is fostered through anarchy in distribution. 
Security and certainty of a market is the aim and 
purpose of the producing capitalist. These consti- 
tute some of the reasons for conflict between pro- 
ducing and distributing capital. But this conflict of 
itself holds out no menace to merchants' capital. It 
is the fact that he stands in the way of social progress 
that makes his doom inevitable. He prevents society 
from obtaining greater benefits from the processes it 
has evolved as a means of solving the bread problem 



142 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

and therefore Social Evolution must discard him. 
Slowly but surely society is displacing the merchant 
and assuming his duties in response to the harmony 
of interest of producing capital and the vast majority 
of consumers. The following quotations may be 
cited as illustrative of this tendency: 

There is a movement on foot in England which is calculated 
to encourage the creation of trusts and combinations of all sorts 
with the \iew of the idtimale elimination of llie merchant from 
British trade. It is reported that the movement has the endorse- 
ment of one of the Government departments. The British Board of 
Trade is said to have adopted the plan as its "considered policy," 
and is sending round the country missionaries who preach the 
gospel of cartels and trusts and arrange with taxpayers' money 
for the extinction of Ike British merchant. Manufacturers are 
being ad\ised that the sale of their products are no longer safe in 
private hands. . . . The London Economist, for the purpose of 
pointing out something of the revolution that this departmental 
activity proposes to bring about in British trade, sets down the 
following as a few of the assumptions on which the policy is 
based: (1) Competition among the manufacturers is a bad 
thing. (2) Combines among manufacturers are good things. 
(3) The work of manufacture can, under proper Government 
supervision, be left to private enterprise, but the task of selling 
is too delicate for the indi\adual and should be entrusted to Govern- 
ment officials. (4) The merchant is an unnecessary person (semi- 
officially described as a parasite) and the Government is entitled 
to bring about his extinction and is qualified to take his place. 
(5) The interests of the consumer will be so safe in the hands of 
manufacturing trusts that the Government can neglect them or 
at least defer them for subsequent consideration.^ [My italics.] 

^ Fear Extinction of British Merchants, New York Times, Decem- 
ber 30. 1917. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 143 

The London Economist is, of course, opposed to 
such social progress, "for it seems to combine the 
worst features of SociaHsm with the least defensible 
elements of individualism." 

We have seen that society evolves in response to 
the harmony of interest of the majority as consumers, 
and that the majority is usually formed through a 
combination of the powerful and the useful as against 
the remnant of the past and the useless of the present. 
The powerful of our epoch are the owners of the 
means of production, the useful are all those in so- 
ciety who render a socially necessary service. 

The quotations cited above prove that it is to the 
interest of the powerful — the producing capitalists 
— to have society eliminate the merchant and itself 
undertake distribution to the consumer. What is 
the attitude of the other factor, the useful, without 
which the majority necessary to set social progress 
in motion cannot be obtained? 

The program of the British Labor Party is a good 
index of the attitude of the useful members of (so- 
ciety towards this form of social progress. In this 
labor program we read as follows: 

The Labor Party holds that the municipalities should not 
confine their activities to the necessarily costly services of edu- 
cation, sanitation and poUce; nor yet rest content with acquiring 
control of the local water, gas, electricity, and tramways; but 
that every facility should be afforded them to acquire (easily, 
quickly, cheaply) all the land they require and to extend their 
enterprises in housing and town planning, parks and public 
libraries, the provision of music and the organization of recrea- 
tion, and also to undertake besides the retailing of coal and other 

10 



144 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

services of common utilihj, 'particularly the local supply of milk 

This question of retail prices of household commodities is 
emphatically the most practical of all pohtical issues to the 
woman elector. The male pohticians have too long neglected 
the grievances of the small household, which is the prey of every 
profiteering combination. ... It is, so the Labor Party holds, 
jmt as much the fxmction of Government and just as necessary a 
part of the democratic regulation of industry to safeguard the iiir 
terests of the community as a whole and those of all grades and 
sections of private consumers in the matter of prices as it is by the 
factory and trade boards acts to protect the rights of the wage- 
earning producers in the matter of wages, hours of labor, and 
sanitation.! [My italics.] 

Thus does the British Labor Party join hands 
with the owners of productive capital in a common 
demand that society put a stop to exploitation by 
the useless trader. The efficiency of productive 
capital and the interests of the consumer demand 
that society replace the merchant as the distributor 
of consumable wealth. Social Evolution cannot ig- 
nore the interests of a majority thus formed, so we 
are destined to see a tremendous impetus to the 
movement for social concern in immediate needs of 
the consumer. Thus does Social Evolution operate 
in England. But the laws that control its operations 
are not peculiar to any one nation. Social Evolu- 
tion responds to an international law that requires 
no treaties. 

In this country we see a similar combination 
against the merchant and in the interest of the con- 
sumer^ The Labor parties recently formed in a 

! British Labor Party: Reconstruction Program. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 145 

number of states, take the position that the welfare 
of the consumer demands the suppression of tho 
dealer and the assumption of his duties by society. 
The following indicates Labor's attitude: 

Reduction of the cost of living to a just level immediately and 
as a permanent policy by the development of co-operation and 
the elimination of wasteful methods, middlemen, and all profiteering 
in creation and distribution of products.^ [My italics.] 

President Woodrow Wilson, on August 8, 1919, 
went before Congress and in a special message ex- 
clusively devoted to this subject, demanded that 
society abolish the merchant and trader and assume 
national control of the processes of distribution as the 
only means of permanently reducing the cost pf living. 

President Wilson's opening statement was as 
follows: "I have sought this opportunity to address 
you because it is clearly my duty to call your atten- 
tion to the present cost of living and to urge upon 
you with all the persuasive force of which I am 
capable, the legislative measures v/hich would be 
most effective in controlling it and bringing it 
down." 

This was followed with a recital of the well-known 
abuses to which society is subjected by the parasitic 
middlemen and merchants and after suggesting some 
immediate steps as a means of curbing their activ- 
ities. President Wilson made the following very 
significant statement: "It does not seem to me that 
we can confine ourselves to detailed measures of 

^ Platform Labor Party of Illinois. 



146 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

this kind, if it is indeed our purpose to assume na- 
tional control of the processes of distribution. I take 
it for granted that that is our purpose and our duty. 
Nothing less will suffice. We need not hesitate to 
handle a national problem in a national way." 

Clearly, Social Evolution holds out a rather hope- 
less future for the merchant or middleman. 

It may be said that there is very httle of a prac- 
tical nature to indicate social concern in the distri- 
bution of consumable wealth. Those who understand 
the true laws of Social Evolution require but little of 
a practical nature as a means of discerning the trend 
of the times. Enough, however, has already been 
accomplished in a practical way to enable even a 
Marxist to read the handwriting on the wall. 

We must again turn to Germany if we wish to 
observe social concern in the distribution of the 
necessities of life. We cannot go into a full descrip- 
tion of German municipal activity on behalf of the 
consumer. That has already been done by others. 
We are deaUng with the historic interpretation of 
this phenomenon. To recall that the scope of mu- 
nicipal activity ranges all the way from pubUc baths 
to theaters and dance halls is sufficient to make one 
appreciate the extent of social concern in the welfare 
of the consumer. 

It is, however, necessary to dwell a little more 
fully on the latest object of social concern — the food 
supply. 

Either by direct production or by contracts with existing co- 
operative societies, or with societies specially formed for the 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 147 

purpose, many German cities have arranged for the supply of 
meat, vegetables, and other foodstuffs at lower prices than those 
at which private traders were dehvering. Thus, in 1912, no less 
than 149 German cities (19 of which had a population exceeding 
100,000) sold potatoes and, in many cases, other vegetables 
also, direct to their citizens. Four German towns, namely, 
Ulm, Lennep, Wermelskerchen, and RentUngen, produced milk 
from municipally owned herds, and sold it direct to their in- 
habitants. Many other cities, including such large ones as 
Mannheim, Freiburg, Kreuznach and Offenbach-on-Main, pur- 
chase milk and resell it to their citizens either at cost or at a 
very small profit, and Freiburg has, in addition, taken up the 
sale of condensed milk.^ 

W. H. Dawson tells us that: 

Inquiries made by the Berlin Statistical Office in 62 important 
towns showed that in 60 of these towns, with a combined popu- 
lation of over 15,000,000, the authorities had in 1911 and 1912 
organized a meat supply in order to relieve the prevailing scarcity 
and counteract the high prices. . . . Many of the arrangements 
devised to meet a temporary emergency have now been placed 
on a permanent basis, and it is probable that German towns 
will in no distant future add to their other enterprises practical 
measures for making certain branches of the food supply inde- 
pendent of the interest and convenience of private traders.^ [My 
italics.] 

In France the Government has undertaken the 
distribution of food. This is not a war, but a peace 
measure, having been inaugurated six months after 
the signing of the armistice. This move has brought 
about tremendous savings to the consumers at the 
expense of the dealers. 

^ Emil Davies, Collectivism in the Making, p. 54. 
^ Municipal Life and Government in Germany. 



148 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

We have now reviewed the four principal forms 
taken by modern Social Evolution, namely: (1) So- 
cial and industrial reform; (2) socialization of trans- 
portation and communication; (3) direct taxation; 
(4) socialization of distribution. Our studies have 
revealed that each of these represents a breakdown 
of the old order and the evolving of the new. It is 
now clear that all these social changes have been 
brought about not through conflict at the point of 
production, but in response to the fundamental law 
that has operated throughout all history; m., 
the higher economic interests of the majority as 
social beings or consumers. The modern method of 
solving the problem of existence, the social method 
of production, was called into existence through the 
operation of this law. 

To-day Social Evolution concerns itself largely 
with the task of distributing the benefits of modern 
production. In past epochs a form of exploitation 
came to be abolished only through a change in the 
method of production. It was not, however, the 
exploitation at the point of production which brought 
about a change in the method of production. New 
modes of production have always been called into 
existence in response to the economic interests of the 
majority as consumers. An advanced mode of pro- 
duction represented a step in the direction of a 
solution to the problem of existence. 

With the abolition of a mode of production came 
to an end the form of exploitation that was peculiar 
to it, but only as an accompanying incident to social 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 149 

progress. This can be readily realized from the fact 
that an increased ratio of exploitation at the point 
of production is an inseparable phenomenon of all 
social progress. The capitaUst form of produc- 
tion being the most perfected yet evolved, shows a 
greater ratio of exploitation at the point of produc- 
tion than any previous epoch. 

We see then that Social Evolution, unhke Marxists, 
never stands still. It is sweeping on with an irre- 
sistible force in the direction of its historic purpose. 

What interests us at this point is this: What, in 
terms of Surplus Value and the class struggle, is the 
significance of ail the social changes we have enu- 
merated above? 

We must never lose sight of the fact so strongly 
emphasized by Marx that, in modern nations, wealth 
production is a social process— that the total national 
income is the product of the combined efforts of /- 
every useful member of the national family. 

But the social means of wealth production is not 
owned by the nation. The ownership is vested in a 
small group. This group of private owners with- 
holds from society a large proportion of the socially 
created products. In other words, they enjoy the 
benefits of social Surplus Value. But the withheld 
products must first be sold if the social Surplus Value 
is to be reaUzed. Productive capital concentrates its 
activities on the production of values. A number of 
new factors enter into the process of sale. The 
products must be transported to the market and 
distributed so that they may become accessible to 



150 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

the consumer. These respective activities have 
become the exclusive functions of special capitalist 
groups. Marx made clear that the profits which fall 
to these groups constitute a portion of the Social 
Surplus originally extracted at the point of produc- 
tion by the tool-owning class. In other words, the 
owners of the means of production give up a portion 
of their social Surplus Value to the capitalists who 
devote themselves to the business of transporting 
and distributing products, and thus realizing their 
values. 

If the extraction of Surplus Value is the basis for 
the modern class struggle it becomes obvious that 
the class struggle must be waged against any and 
all who profit through Surplus Value. But it is not 
a class, but society, that is the creator of all value; 
therefore, it is not a class but society tliat is exploited 
of social Surplus Value. The struggle is not a class 
struggle, but a social struggle against a class, the 
profit-making class. 

When society undertakes an economic function, 
such as the pubHc ownership of railroads or the dis- 
tribution of consumable products as the municipal- 
ization of the milk supply, the Surplus Value hereto- 
fore obtained by the railroad-owning capitaUsts or 
the private milk distributors now reverts back to 
society, and the social struggle is to that degree 
eliminated. In these specified instances the cap- 
italist principle — profit — had to yield to the Socialist 
principle — ser\'ice. The change manifests itself in a 
decrease in cost to the consumer. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 151 

The means of financing society's economic ac- 
tivities is found in the principle of direct taxation. 
This is the purest form of expropriating the ex- 
propriators. The income of the entire capitaHst 
class comes from society in the form of social Surplus 
Value. When society takes back a portion by means 
of direct taxation, the expropriators are to that de- 
gree expropriated. When the income from this form 
of taxation is used for the purpose of financing an 
economic function assumed by society we have a 
situation in which the entire capitalist class is com- 
pelled to give up a portion of its Surplus Value to be 
used for the purpose of undermining the capitalist 
system and replacing it with an installment of the 
Sociahst system. 

But we have seen that Social Evolution is not 
responsive to struggles, whether waged by a class or 
society. Struggles are an effect, not a cause, and 
Social Evolution is governed by laws that deal with 
causes. All struggles are but incidents in the 
process of arriving at a solution to the problem of 
existence. 

Who, for instance, would have the hardihood to 
contend that it was the class struggle that developed 
Germany into a socialized State? National efficiency 
was the principle behind every social measure under- 
taken by Germany. How well it has fulfilled its 
purpose is a inatter of historic record. Progress for 
the nation was the thought behind every measure in 
the interest of the individual. It was the harmony 
of interest of the majority as social beings and not 



152 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

conflict at the point of production that evolved 
Germany so rapidly into the socialized State. 

To overcome a belated start Germany was com- 
pelled to apply in a very considerable degree the 
social principle clearly indicated by the modern 
system of wealth production. In the interest of the 
majority as social beings, Germany discarded the 
capitahst principle and applied the Socialist principle. 

The apphcation of the SociaUst principle not only 
enabled Germany to overcome every handicap, but 
actually to outstrip every capitalist nation in pro- 
ductive efficiency. So much so that now the nations 
that but a generation ago were models for Germany 
are to-day compelled in turn to use Germany as their 
model. German national efficiency has given a tre- 
mendous impetus to the apphcation of the social 
principle in England and the United States. Ger- 
many outstripped English capitalism with Socialism. 
England and the United States are trying to meet 
German efficiency, not through the capitahst prin- 
ciple, but by discarding capitalism and substituting 
the Socialist principle. Thus in England and the 
United States national efficiency is beginning to 
have the same meaning that it had in Germany, the 
ever-extending application of the Socialist principle. 

The extension of govermnent domain over eco- 
nomic functions in England and the United States 
follows the path traversed in Germany; the reten- 
tion of the principal means of production in private 
hands and an ever-increasing social concern in the 
distribution of consumable wealth. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 153 

Productive efficiency and social progress require 
that henceforth the Socialiist principle rule in these 
departments. The high state of efficiency which 
must inevital)Iy follow a wholehearted application 
of the Socialist principle will bring nearer the day 
that will prove industrial capital a fetter to the 
further development of production, and therefore 
inimical to social progress, the aim of which is to 
secure to society its means of existence. Wlien that 
stage is reached the interests of the majority as con- 
sumers will demand that the capitalist principle in 
production be eliminated and the Socialist principle 
substituted in its place. The controllers of pro- 
ductive capital in all probability will not form a 
component part of this majority, although it is not 
so preposterous an idea as may appear on first 
thought. In the first place, the controllers of indus- 
trial capital will no longer be the powerful group in 
their present industrial sense. No group that stands 
in the way of the immediate concern of Social Evo- 
lution is pov/erful in the economic sense; political 
impotency follows as a natural consequence. In the 
second place, the Socialist principle "\^dll have been 
too well ingrained in the social fabric to hold out any 
hope of success in a fight against its extension, and 
lastly, industrial capital will by that time have been 
deprived through direct taxation of so large a pro- 
portion of its Surplus Value or profit that it will 
gladly turn over to society its plants and accept 
bonds assuring a minimum profit without further 
risk or contact with industry. These bonds will no 



154 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

doubt yield a very modest income and only during 
the lifetime of the original holders. 

All this is in the nature of speculation, but specu- 
lation based upon a study of the processes of Social 
Evolution. For the present, productive capital 
appears safe from social interference. Be it the most 
gigantic trust. Social Evolution does not indicate 
any immediate danger to its private controllers. 
In fact, productive capital owes its immunity to its 
trustified state. This is the very opposite to the gen- 
erally accepted Sociahst view. Sociahsts have looked 
to the industrial trusts as the first to be socialized. 
This view arises from the fact that Sociahsts have 
concentrated their attention solely upon industrial 
development and not on social development, which 
gives rise to industrial development. 

The immediate needs of the majority in society as 
consumers is always the first concern of Social Evo- 
lution. That is why Social Evolution concerns itself 
first with consumable wealth and not with industrial 
capital. Distribution of the annually created social 
wealth is bound to be the outstanding phenomenon 
of the social process of the immediate future. The 
capitahst principle is to be ehminated from every 
department serving the needs of the consumer. 
The portion from the original fund of Surplus Value 
falling to these groups is to go back to society. 

Marxian principles do not assign any historic role 
to the masses as consumers. It is only as Socialist 
Party platforms get away from Marxian principles 
that they seem to recognize that the masses have an 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 155 

interest as consumers. Socialist literature gives 
scant consideration to the consumer. 

Karl Kautsky develops the consumer point of 
view perhaps more fully than any other recognized 
Socialist. He says: 

The possessor of labor power gains more in declines of price 
and loses more with rising prices than buyers of other products. 
His standpoint in the goods market is in antagonism to that of 
the sellers. In spite of the fact that he produces all and con- 
sumes but a portion of his product, his standpoint is that of the 
consumer and not that of the producer. His product does not 
belong to him, but to his exploiters, the capitalists. It is the 
capitalist who appears upon the market as a producer and seller 
\\\i\\ the product of the labor of the wage worker. The laborer 
appears there only as the buyer of the means of hfe. In conse- 
quence of these facts, the laborers are placed in antagonism to 
the sellers. 1 

WTiile these facts to Socialists appear to be matters 
of recent discovery, scarcely worthy of more than 
passing notice, to Social Evolution they have formed 
the historic basis for all social progress. 

The tendency that leads to the elimination of the 
capitalist principle and substitution of the Socialist 
principle in transportation, communication and dis- 
tribution is, as we have seen, not at all a product of 
a special form of government. We have found, in 
fact, that autocratic Germany showed a greater 
degree of development in this direction than any 
other nation. England has come forward in recent 
years and democratic America is considerably be- 

1 The Road to Power, p. 105. 



156 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

hind in the movement. But it would be a great 
mistake not to recognize the relative merit of these 
steps to the peoples of the several countries. So- 
ciahzation means much more to the people of Eng- 
land or the United States than it did to the German 
people. The fact that sociahzation on a considerable 
scale manifested itself first in autocratic Germany 
may have something to do with the failure to appre- 
ciate its full social significance. Socialization with- 
out democracy is not and cannot be Socialism. But 
this is no reason why Sociahsts should fail to study 
its historic and social significance. 

With nations rapidly passing through a revolu- 
tionary transformation from mere governments of 
men into administrators of things; with the assump- 
tion of economic functions by the State proceeding 
at an ever-accelerated rate, Socialists should do more 
than oppose— they should understand. 

To understand social phenomena was the task to 
which Marx dedicated his hfe. He despised fos- 
sihzed views. He turned his back on his own views 
as readily as on those of others. The processes of 
Social Evolution alone were his guiding hght. That 
is why, while in 1850, we find him saying that ''the 
only solution of the ten-hour problem as of all 
problems arising from the antagonism of capital and 
labor is the proletarian revolution," in 1864, when 
the ten-hour law had become an accomplished fact 
without a proletarian revolution he, like the great 
student that he was, was quick to grasp its tremen- 
dous social significance. He drew attention to the 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 157 

significance of the ten-hour law in an Inaugural 
Address delivered before the International Working- 
men's Association on September 28, 1864: 

, . . The wonderful results of this labor measure (the British 
ten-hour law) were of more than mere practical significance. . . . 
The struggle for the legal hmitation of the workday was the 
more bitter because it was not merely a check upon individual 
greed, but also a direct intervention in the great battle waged 
between the blind law of supply and demand — the pohtical 
economy of the bourgeoisie — and the principle of social regulation 
of production, which is the quintessence of the political economy of 
the laboring class. And therefore the ten-hour bill was not only 
a great practical success, it was the victory of a principle. In the 
bright sunhglit of day the bourgeois political economy was here 
vanquished for the first time by the political economy of the worJdng 
class. ^ 

We respectfully commend these views to our 
brethren, the revolutionary, scientific Marxians who 
mouth about ''the class struggle" and lay down a 
peremptory demand for a dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat. To Marx, not the principle of proletarian 
regulation of production, but the principle of social 
regulation of production, was the quintessence of the 
political economy of the laboring class. 

To Marx, working-class political economy was not 
a class principle, but a social principle. The social 
principle wherever applied is based upon the pohtical 
economy of the w^orking class. Close students of this 
phenomenon seem to be in agreement that socializa- 
tion has a tendency to promote political democracy. 

1 Quoted by Simkhovitch, pp. 123-124, in Marxism versus Socialism. 
[My italics.! 



158 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

The Fabian Research Bureau tells us that: 

With the alteration of function, governments tend to change 
in spirit, progressively discarding the authoritarian conception 
of dominion with its correlative of obedience to coercive law, and 
adopting instead the more modern conception of National 
Housekeeping, with its correlative of conformity to the common 
rules designed only to secure the conmion comfort. 

It would, indeed, be strange f it were otherwise. 
The elimination of the profit principle is a social 
process in the interest of the nation as social beings. 
National interest is advanced at the expense of the 
profit-making class within the nation. Organized 
society is gradually assuming the functions of the 
profit-making class. When the task shall have been 
completed there will be no exploiting class; there- 
fore, no justification for the repression of democracy. 
And as Marx says : 

When in the course of development class distinctions have 
disappeared, and all production has been centrahzed in the 
hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the pubUc power 
will lose its political character. Political power, properly so- 
called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing 
another. 1 

Political and industrial democracy are inevitable, 
not necessarily in vindication of justice, but because 
of their efficacy as social instruments by which to 
arrive at a solution to the basic social problem — 
security in the means of life. Man has evolved social 
production as a means of attaining that end. But 
the end is not and cannot be attained without po- 

1 Communist Manifesto, p. 46. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 159 

litical and industrial democracy. The harmony of 
interest of the majority as social beings makes indus- 
trial democracy as inevitable as was political 
democracy. 

Our studies have made clear that we are in the 
midst of an epoch of Social Revolution which, pro- 
ceeding at an ever-accelerated pace, has already suc- 
ceeded in undermining the capitalist mode of trans- 
portation, communication and exchange and that 
all these revolutionary changes have been brought 
about in response to the same laws that led to social 
progress in all previous epochs. 

We find ourselves in complete agreement with 
Marx when he says : 

Of course, in the beginning this cannot be effected except by 
means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the 
conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, 
therefore, which appear economically insufficient and unten- 
able, but which in the course of the movement outstrip them- 
selves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order and 
are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode 
of production. 1 

Society has made "despotic inroads upon the rights 
of property and on the conditions of bourgeois pro- 
duction." Property has been made to understand 
that society has rights which property is compelled 
to respect. Public Service corporations such as rail- 
roads, street car lines, telephone and telegraph 
corporations, electric and gas supply corporations, 
etc., etc., are curbed in the amount of profit they 

' Communist Manifesto, p. 45. 
11 



160 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

may exact from society. These properties cannot 
force from the public the increase in wages they may 
be compelled to grant to their employees. Whereas 
properties that have not felt despotic inroads on 
their rights can boost prices as high as 'Hhe traffic 
will bear." Where society has stepped in, prices 
have a tendency to remain fixed, no matter how much 
of an increase there may have been in the cost of 
operation. 

As for "despotic inroads on the conditions of bour- 
geois production," we must confess that very little 
progress has been made in this direction. For Marx 
to have looked for this in the beginning is but one 
more proof that he did not understand the operation 
of the laws of Social Evolution. Even at this day 
Social Evolution shows very httle concern over the 
means of production. But if Social Evolution has 
ignored the bourgeois conditions of production, it 
has been extremely busy making despotic inroads on 
the conditions of bourgeois transportation, com- 
munication and distribution. The bourgeois condi- 
tion, that is, the profit principle, is fast disappearing 
in these departments of social relations and is being 
supplanted by the social condition. Despotic in- 
roads in the bourgeois conditions of distribution is 
the latest phenomenon of the operations of Social 
Evolution. Marx, from the nature of his under- 
standing of the laws of Social Evolution, could not 
foresee inroads in the bourgeois conditions of dis- 
tribution, except through inroads in the bourgeois 
conditions of production. The view that the bene- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY' 161 

ficiaries of the bourgeois conditions of production 
would themselves stimulate the inroads in the bour- 
geois conditions of distribution because of its imme- 
diate benefit to them would to Mai*x have appeared 
as preposterous and Utopian. Yet Social Evolution 
proved this to be an incontrovertible fact. 

We know that Social Evolution cannot be arrested 
in its course. It may be retarded, but cannot be 
stopped. It must continue its operations in response 
to the same laws that have brought about the 
present stage of progress. 

Every phenomenon of modern Social Evolution 
blazens forth the fact that social progress is dictated 
by the social interests of the majority. And what is 
the method used to attain this progesss? Not by 
uprisings of the populace against the Government, 
and surely not by civil war — one portion of the people 
against another — but by the majority of consumers 
using their organized authority as the Citj'^, State or 
National Government, by means of which to break 
down and stamp out social exploitation. 

Instead of uprisings against the Government by 
the populace as in the case of former revolutions, we 
see the ''populace," i.e., the majority of social beings 
themselves organized as the Government uprising 
against their exploiters. Both are social revolutions, 
aimed against antisocial minorities, the difference 
being that former revolutions were directed against 
the Govermnent, which itself was the oppressor, 
while to-day the people constitute the Government 
and use their organized power against the anti- 



162 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

social portion of the populace. Every gain is ob- 
tained by the majority in its organized capacity as 
the Government. And every gain is retained by the 
majority in its organized capacity as the Govern- 
ment. The majority does not have to wage a civil 
war against the exploiters. The majority organized 
as the Government is waging a social war against an 
antisocial minority. This antisocial minority can- 
not wage a civil war because it is hopelessly divided 
into innumerable groups with conflicting interests. 

We are in the midst of the social revolution and 
nothing can prevent the attaining of the final goal — 
the abolition of profit. 

The modern scientific (?) Socialists who still uphold 
the view of a civil war place themselves in a most 
untenable and ridiculous position in the eyes of the 
observant and thinking element of every nation. They 
still preach the antisocial class struggle and call for a 
revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

The theory that social progress is registered 
through the class struggle precludes the idea of 
progress except through civil war. If there was no 
civil war there was no progress. 

But they are bewildered. They don't know 
whither they are tending. They have no means of 
explaining the social phenomena manifesting itself 
before their very eyes. ''Are we making progress or 
are we but killing time while waiting for the revolu- 
tion?" This is the question that is perplexing them. 
They cannot see the Socialist forest on account of the 
Socialist trees! 



CHAPTER XIII 



<<i.r .-r^^-rr^n/r " 



MARXISM AND THE LABOR MOVEMENT 

It is doubtful if Shakespeare's genius ever con- 
ceived of a more heartrending tragedy of unrequited 
love than is to be found in the Socialists' relation to 
the Labor Movement. 

History records no parallel to the undying devotion 
of SociaHsts to Labor. If Labor had responded with 
anything like such ardor, what a powerful combina- 
tion they would have made! 

But Labor does not give in proportion as it re- 
ceives. It seems to act in the spirit of a fascinating 
damsel who, having once captured the heart of her 
wooer, feels secure in its undisputed possession. 
And no beloved one could possibly have more justi- 
fication for this assumption than has Labor. No 
matter how much they may be spurned by Labor, 
the Socialists, as ''Marxists," must remain true to 
their first love. Marxian principles admit of no 
alternative. 

Marxian principles concern themselves with the 
welfare of the producer, with exploitation at the 
point of production. Labor unions also concern 
themselves with the welfare of the producer, with 
exploitation at the point of production. These rea- 



164 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

sons alone ought to furnish sufficient basis for wedded 
bliss between labor unions and Socialists. 

But the Marxians' attachment for Labor has a 
far deeper explanation. Marxian principles are 
based on the theory that social progress is regis- 
tered through class conflict. This theory vests Labor 
with an historic mission, which is: 

To organize itself as a class and by means of a revolution 
make itself the ruling class and as such sweep away by force 
the old conditions of production.^ 

Not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons (economic 
development) that bring death to itself; it has also called into 
existence the men who are to vneld those weapons — the modern 
working class — the proletarians.^ 

As the bringing about of the new order is en- 
tirely dependent on the proletariat, Socialists must 
make their appeal to this one class, the class that is 
exploited at the point of production. Such an appeal 
constitutes the measure of their scientific Socialism. 

The Socialists of one country judge the quality 
of the science of the Socialists of another country 
by this test: do they concentrate their appeal to 
the proletariat that is exploited at the point of pro- 
duction; if so, they are "revolutionary scientific 
Sociahsts." Maraan principles do not recognize 
the workers in any other capacity save that of pro- 
ducers who are exploited at the point of production. 
The workers' interests as citizens, as social beings, 
are matters that Marxian principles completely 

^ Communist Manifesto, p. 46. 
2 Ibid, p. 22. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 1G5 

ignore. They center their interest solely on pro- 
ducers for whom the doors of the Marxians are 
thrown wide open. 

The International Socialist Congresses do not 
consist alone of Socialist delegates. The Interna- 
tional welcomes labor union representatives. More 
than that, it even welcomes non-Socialist political 
parties, as long as they represent labor unions. 
The British Labor Party's admission to the Congress 
is an example of this attitude. Besides the five votes 
allotted to the British Labor Party out of the ten 
allowed to British political organizations, ten more 
votes were allowed to the British labor unions, thus 
gi\'ing the labor unions fifteen out of a total of 
twenty votes allotted to Great Britain. 

Another instance of Socialist devotion to Labor is 
to be had in the action of the Stuttgart Congress, 
which refused a vote to the Australian Socialist 
Party because it was not a member of the non- 
Socialist Labor Party of that country. And this 
party did not even ask for admission to the Inter- 
national Congress! 

The Congress of the French Socialist Party has 
gone even further than that. It has gone on record 
as holding the view that labor unions can work 
directly for Socialism on the economic field, " Union- 
ism having the same aim as Socialism." 

There is therefore little room for doubting the 
devotion of Mai^ian Socialism to labor unionism. 

Now let us see what is the attitude of labor 
unionism towards Marxian Socialism. 



166 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

England is the classic capitalist country and the 
trade union movement preceded the Socialist move- 
ment. The Socialist Party at once concentrated its 
efforts to capture the labor movement, but to this 
day has failed to win the unions' support for the 
Socialist political program. In Germany and Austria 
this has been partially accomplished and only be- 
cause the trade unions were created by the Socialists. 

In the United States, the trade union movement 
being older than the Sociahst Party also stands 
aloof from the Sociahst political program. What is 
the explanation for this, since the principles of both 
are the same? WTiile the trade union may not 
recognize the fact, its activities are nevertheless 
based on the class struggle, it aims to serve the wel- 
fare of the producer by hmiting exploitation at the 
point of production. 

The Marxians base their principles on this conflict 
at the point of production. "Which side is respon- 
sible for the lack of union between the two move- 
ments? Which side is inconsistent? The Socialist 
parties have always accused the unions of inconsist- 
ency. They are in the habit of saying to the trade 
unionist: Do not scab on Election Day. Strike at the 
ballot box. Go into the political field. But the trade 
unionists have not followed this advice. Are they in- 
consistent? Let us see. 

Marxian theories and trade union theories are 
thoroughly antisocial. Trade unions, however, are 
constructive agencies, serving to protect the eco- 
nomic interests of the workers as producers. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 167 

But it is only in the factory and in the trade union 
that the worker thinks in terms of a producer. In 
all else affecting his life, he thinks in common terms 
with his fellow citizens, that is, as a social being, as 
a consumer. The Marxians insist that he take his 
trade union principles into politics, that he use his 
political power to serve his interests as a producer. 
The trade unionist refuses to use his social power for 
antisocial purposes, and therefore denies political 
support to the party that bases its principles upon 
the class interests of producers. 

Then there is another matter that puzzles the 
minds of the trade unionists. The Socialist Party 
claims that a movement to be scientific must be a 
class movement of producers. Yet it comes forward 
with a practical program that is based upon the 
social interests of consumers! 

The trade unionist finds himself lacking the fine 
training that would qualify him to denote either the 
science or the logic for this phenomenon. 

In this inconsistency is to be found the explanation 
for the chasm that separates the trade union move- 
ment from the Socialist movement. It is not, as 
has been formerly supposed, the trade unions that 
are inconsistent. On the contrary, they have been 
consistent throughout. It is the Marxians with 
their antisocial theories versus their social practice 
that are inconsistent. The trade unions refused 
to be a party to such inconsistencies. 

In recent years trade unions have shown a tend- 
ency to consider political action. British labor 



168 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

unions were the first to try the experiment. The 
British Labor Party entered the pohtical arena on 
a platform based almost entirely upon the welfare 
of the producer. Its aim was to secure progressive 
labor legislation. 

Did it meet with much success? It is a well-known 
fact that the British Labor Party's record of accom- 
pHshments is far from inspiring. The explanation 
for this is simple. Our studies have proved that all 
progress is registered not through conflict at the 
point of production, but in response to the harmony 
of interest of the majority as social beings or con- 
sumers. This is a universal law operating in Social 
Evolution. The British Labor Party's attempt to 
promote social progress was Utopian, in opposition 
to the laws of Social Evolution, and therefore 
doomed to failure. Practical experience soon taught 
the lesson that had already been learned by the 
Marxians, that a pohtical party which made the 
class struggle at the point of production its principal 
concern was doomed. 

In practice, the Marxians were compelled to re- 
puchate their theoretical antisocial principles and 
adopt a platform based on the welfare of the con- 
sumer. WTiat gro-n-th and influence they have since 
attained is entirely due to this action. 

The British Labor Party's anxiety to stay in the 
field, to grow and to extend its influence and use- 
fulness, compelled it to go beyond its original pur- 
pose and also adopt a Socialist program, i.e., a pro- 
gram based upon the welfare of the consumer. Its 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 10!) 

famous Reconstruction Program is founded on this 
new principle. 

This program of the British Labor Party has at- 
tracted international attention because it concerns 
itself primarily with social welfare, with the welfare 
of the consumer. 

So anxious is the British Labor Party to impress 
all with the fact that it is no longer a Labor Party 
in the sense that its principal concern is the welfare 
of the producer, that it feels called upon to reiterate 
again and again that not a single one of its long list 
of proposals is in ''any sense a class proposal." 
Which is perfectly true. The program is consistently 
Socialistic throughout and therefore in harmony 
with the laws of Social Evolution. It aims to ac- 
celerate social progress in the interest of the majority 
as social beings. If the British Labor Party does not 
swerve from its social principles it is destined to play 
an historic role in the process of ehminating the 
profit principle from the life of the English nation. 

Although the British Labor Party had been in the 
field for som^e years, its experience was not of the 
character to encourage the formation of a Labor 
Party in this country. 

However, in 1918 the American Labor Party was 
launched at Bridgeport, Connecticut, due largely to 
the profound impression made upon Labor by the 
reconstruction program of the British Labor Party. 
Labor saw it acclaimed as a great, constructive docu- 
ment. Every faction in society save the reactionary 
minority seemed to vie with one another in singing 



170 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

its praises. The reactionists did not dare give voice 
to their opposition. 

The American trade unionists undertook a serious 
study of that program. They soon found the expla- 
nation for the universal enthusiasm it had spontane- 
ously aroused. They found that the Reconstruction 
Program of the British Labor Party was not a labor 
program, but a social program. They found that it 
concerned itself not with exploitation at the point of 
production, but with the welfare of the great mass of 
the people as citizens, as social beings, as consumers. 
It is to this fact that the Reconstruction Program 
owes its great popularity. 

The lesson sank deep into the minds of the Ameri- 
can trade unionists. They undertook at once to 
follow in the footsteps of their English comrades. 
They drew up a platform for the American Labor 
Party, the basic principles of which are identical 
with those of the Reconstruction Program of the 
English Labor Party. It does not make a class 
appeal, but breathes the social spirit throughout. 
The welfare of the consumer, social well-being is the 
dominant note throughout the platform. If the 
American Labor Party adheres to these principles — 
and no doubt it will — it is bound to become the 
dominant political party in this country. 

So we see that the labor unions have at last ac- 
cepted the advice of the Marxians and have gone 
into politics. Are the Marxians happy? Are the 
Marxians of this country flocking to the support of 
the iVmerican Labor Party? If so, they have cer- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 171 

tainly accomplished their aim in a manner admir- 
ably calculated to avoid noise or detection. But 
past experience makes us doubt that Marxians will 
support the Labor Party. The Marxians will never 
forgive the trade unions for their consistency. Why 
isn't the American Labor Party based upon the same 
principles as the trade union movement, that is, on 
the welfare of the producer, on exploitation at the 
point of production, is what the Marxians will 
demand to know. Those are the principles upon 
which the Sociahst Party is based. The Marxians 
will deny recognition or support to the American 
Labor Party as long as it does not do the same. 
Let the theoretical principles of the American Labor 
Party be the same as those that underlie the trade 
union movement, let them be based upon exploita- 
tion at the point of production, and the Marxians 
are satisfied. With the practical program they will 
not quarrel. It can remain just as it is, a social pro- 
gram based on diametrically opposite principles, 
principles that concern themselves with social wel- 
fare, with consumer welfare. The best guarantee 
that the Marxians can offer that they will not op- 
pose such glaring inconsistency is that it conforms 
with their own practice. The theoretical principles 
of the Sociahst Party are in direct conflict with the 
principles upon which its practical program is based. 
Fortunately for the American Labor Party and 
society in general, it is not hkely to pay much atten- 
tion to the demands of the Marxists. It is not bound 
down by dogmas that keep the International scien- 



172 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

tific Socialist movement in a perpetual state of war, 
a war which is now receiving its highest expression 
in Russia and Germany. The American Labor Party 
will not glorify the producer — which the Marxists 
have distorted to mean only the wage-earner — 
nor will it make a fetish of exploitation at the point 
of production. The producer is a consumer in 
common with the rest of his fellow-beings, the pro- 
ducer is a citizen in common with his fellow-citizens, 
the producer is a social being in common with all 
other members of society, and the American Labor 
Party will not only champion his interests as such, 
but by virtue of community of interests will attract 
support that as trade unionists or producers they 
could not possibly obtain. This support will give 
to the American Labor Party such strength and in- 
fluence that it will be in a position to accomplish 
more in ten years in the way of improving the con- 
dition of the trade union members than has been 
accomphshed in fifty years of trade union activity. 

This will be possible without talk of revolution or 
civil war. The American Labor Party, through the 
support of the useful citizenship of this country, 
will use the power of organized society, the Govern- 
ment, as the means by which to obtain for society 
an ever larger proportion of the social wealth created 
by society. It will direct its first efforts to the 
problem of distribution as that is the problem of 
immediate concern to the vast majority in society. 

In the meantime what will happen to the Socialist 
Party? It will have its conventions and some dele- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 173 

gate will have the courage to direct the attention of 
the Marxists to the activities of the American Labor 
Party. He will try to point out that it is doing the 
same work as the Socialist Party. Why not afhliate? 
he will ask. We might at least recognize them, will 
be his plea. That will be the signal for the fireworks. 
WTiat fervid revolutionary speeches will pour forth; 
what denunciations and recriminations will be hurled 
to and fro, and then, after long hours and perhaps 
days of debate, a resolution denouncing the American 
Labor Party for its denial of the ''class struggle" 
will be enthusiastically adopted amid thunderous 
applause. If it should be the good fortune of the 
American Labor Party to escape denunciation, this 
will not mean that affiliation will result. The ex- 
perience of the Non-Partisan League is proof of that. 

The attitude of the Socialist Party towards the 
Non-Partisan League was stated in no uncertain 
terms by the national convention held in April, 
1917. 

We quote the following: 

The following is the report of the resolutions committee on the 
relations of the SociaUst Party to the National Non-Partisan 
League, which was adopted by the Socialist Convention yesterday: 

Whereas, A new political party called the National Non- 
Partisan League that, according to the report made upon the 
same by Conu-ade John Spargo to tliis convention, offers promise 
of speedily acquiring political power for a certain division of the 
industrial class of the Uiiited States, vs., the toilers of the soil; 
and, 

Whereas, In North Dakota and other States it appears that 
large numbers of comrades have aJfUiated with the Leagice in the 



174 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

hope of speedy economic reforms through polilical victory under 
the banners of (lie League and such movement being already at work 
in many other States, with a fair promise of success in all, and it 
being apparent that the National Non-Partisan League presents 
a problem for solution that must be met and mu^t be solved if the 
Socialist Party is to continue as a poUtical or social force in such 
States as are invaded by the League. It being further manifest 
that many of the comrades in such League states propose to 
afiihate with the said League merely for the reason that they mis- 
take tlie mission of the Socialist Party. 

It therefore becomes the duty of this convention to reaffirm 
the principles of Socialism and declare the position of the party 
in the performance of its historic mission. Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Socialist Part.y, being the political arm of the 
working class in its fight for iiulustrial freedom, and its power 
resting mauily in its clear-cut specific declaration of political arul 
economic principles rather than in the number of votes cast for 
the party candidates and the purpose of the SociaUst movement 
being the emancipation of the working class from economic servi- 
tude by the abolition of the entire system of capitalist exploitation 
ratlier than the election to office of candidates for the purpose of 
speedy economic reforms; 

It is therefore declared to be the sense of this convention that 
all State organizations facing the solution of this question be 
urged to remember that to fuse or to compromise is to be swal- 
lowed up and utterly destroyed; that they be urged to maintain 
the revolutionary position of the Socialist Party, and maintain in 
the utmost possible vigor the propaganda of Socialism, imadul- 
terated by association of office seekers, to the end that the 
soUdarity of the working class, the principles of International 
SociaUsm may continue to lay the fomidation for the Social 
Revolution. 

The Social Revolution, not political office, is the end and aim of 
Vie Socialist Party. 

No compromise, no political trading.' [My italics.] 

1 Special dispatch to New York Call, from St. Louis, April 13, 1917. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 175 

This is how the SociaHst Party met and solved the 
problem of the National Non-Partisan League. 
''Many of the Comrades propose to affiliate with the 
League merely for the reason that they mistake the 
mission of the Socialist Party." Precisely, They 
studied the practical program of the Socialist Party 
and arrived at the erroneous conclusion that it was 
the platform of a socialist Party. The national 
convention of the Socialist Party apprises these 
Comrades of their grave mistake. It tells them that 
the Socialist Party is not a socialist Party, but the 
''political arm of the working class"; that social 
revolution, not 'political office, is the end and aim 
of the Socialist Party. And as the Non-Partisan 
League is a socialist party, in that it concerns itself 
with social welfare, the Comrades must have nothing 
to do with it. 

So we have found that there is considerable justi- 
fication for the accusation of inconsistency in the 
relations of the trade unions to the Socialist Party. 
But the blame is not with the trade unions, but with 
the Marxists. 
12 



CHAPTER XIV 



<(,,.„,^Tn,c" 



MARXISM AND THE CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT 

The growth of the co-operative movement is prac- 
tically contemporaneous with the growth of the 
International Sociahst movement. 

There are two phases to this movement, co-opera- 
tives of producers and co-operatives of consumers. 

What has been the attitude of Marxists towards 
these two may be gathered from the following: 

For all Socialists of the sixties, societies for production had 
been the cWef consideration, the co-operative stores were minor. 
The opinion prevailed to which even Engels in his essays on the 
housing question gave expression— that as soon as co-operative 
stores everywhere included the mass of the workers, they would 
certainly have as a consequence a reduction of wages.* 

Bernstein then quotes from a resolution drawn up 
by Marx for the Geneva Congress: 

We recommend workmen to embark on co-operative production 
rather than co-operative stores. The latter touch only the sur- 
face of the economic system of to-day, the first strikes at its 
foundations.^ 

For Marx to take this position should occasion no 
surprise. It was perfectly consistent with his ideas 



* E. Bernstein, Evol. Soc, p. 111. 
2/6-itZ., p. 111. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 177 

of the operations of the laws of Social Evolution. 
He believed that social progress is registered through 
the class struggle at the point of production. In 
advising the workers to organize co-operatives for 
production, he beUeved that he was working in har- 
mony with Social Evolution and accelerating its 
progress. 

He was true to his principles. They concern them- 
selves with the welfare of the producer, with ex- 
ploitation at the point of production; therefore, 
when two forms of co-operatives presented them- 
selves, Mai'x did not hesitate in maldng his choice. 

In this practical apphcation of his theories we obtain 
a striking illustration of their antisocial character. 

The co-operative of producers is a self-governed 
workshop. The class struggle is abolished, for there 
is no surplus value extracted. Each worker obtains 
the full product of his toil. Every grievance of the 
producer as voiced by Marx has been fully met. 
But in what direction has all this taken us, towards 
or away from Socialism? 

Let us take one industry, say the shoe industry, 
as one in which all of Marx's grievances have been 
met. Only the workers of each shop would share in 
the amount that their finished product brought in 
the market. The shops will have to compete with 
each other for a market for their product just as the 
capitalists do to-day. To prevent the inevitable 
ruination that must follow unbridled competition 
they will have to resort to combination just as the 
capitalists do to-day. This will lead to monopoly 



178 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

just as it led to monopoly under capitalism. The 
community would be helpless and entirely at the 
mercy of these shops. They would be in a position 
to oppress society just as the capitalists do to-day. 
Their interests and ideals would be antisocial just 
as the interests and ideals of the cajDitalist class are 
antisocial. 

Nor is this all. The unusually large returns that the 
new conditions in the shoe industry made possible 
would be responsible for an influx of new workers 
into this industry. 

Would it be to the interest of the original group to 
admit unlimited membership? Hardly. They would 
put down conditions that would soon dupUcate the 
present capitahst situation; workers would be per- 
mitted to work, providing they yielded certain con- 
cessions to the original owners. 

Thus the foundation for a capitalist system of 
society would again be laid. With the extraction of 
Surplus Value the class struggle at the point of pro- 
duction would be renewed. 

Such would be the logical and inevitable outcome 
of co-operatives of production. This has been borne 
out by experience. 

Wherever we find the "self-governing workshop successful 
to-day," says Mrs. S. Webb, "a close investigation shows that 
the " self-government " of the workers is a delusion and that the 
association consists, in greater or smaller proportion, of capitahst 
members who are not workers and of wage workers who are not 
members. "1 



Problems of Modem Industry, p. 196. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 179 

Yet Mai-x believed that the co-operatives of pro- 
ducers ''strike at the foundations of the economic 
system of to-day." 

The theoretical principles of the Socialist parties 
are identical with those that underlie co-operatives 
for production. Both are antisocial, both are 
Utopian because they conflict with the laws of So- 
cial Evolution. Had the Socialist parties remained 
true to Mai-xian principles, their strength and in- 
fluence to-day would about equal that of the Anar- 
chists. The co-operatives of production that had 
received Marx's indorsement and blessings have 
everywhere led a most uneventful existence. 

Let us now turn our attention to the other form of 
co-operative — the co-operatives of consumers. 

Marx advised against these because they ''touch 
only the surface of the economic system of to-day." 
It is, of course, true that consumer co-operatives 
do not concern themselves with exploitation at the 
point of production. Their sole concern is exploi- 
tation at the point of consumption. Not the means 
of production, but the distribution of the created 
product, is their first concern. Their ideal is not 
the welfare of the producer, but the welfare of 
the consumer. The co-operative of the consumer 
is based on principles that are social in their nature 
and thus are in harmony with the laws of Social 
Evolution. 

To these facts and to these facts alone must be 
attributed the tremendous growth of the consumer 
co-operative movement. It has not had the good 



180 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

fortune — or shall we say misfortune — ^of having an 
elaborate theoretical system as a basis for its founda- 
tion. On the contrary, all the so-called social move- 
ments, each with its own theoretical system, were 
fundamentally opposed to this movement. WTiy, 
then, did it prosper upon so unprecedented a scale? 
There is only one answer — because it operated in 
harmony with the laws of Social Evolution. 

Social Evolution is intensely practical. It con- 
cerns itself with the problem of existence, with the 
problem of bread. How to sustain life is the basic 

\ economic problem. All history has been shaped 

1) in response to this problem, the problem of man as 

a consumer. 

The launching of the first co-operative was an 
empirical demonstration of this law. It was impos- 
sible for Marx to recognize the significance of the 
consumer co-operative because he failed to under- 
stand the basic law of Social Evolution, 

The consumer co-operative attacked the bread 
problem for its members. It aimed to serve their 
immediate common needs. The harmony of interest 
of the majority controlled its actions. 

To-day the consumer co-operative is the great 
economic phenomenon of the century. It consti- 
tutes a tremendous national and international power. 
Its members number into the millions and its an- 
nual turnover runs into the bilhons. No one to-day 
doubts that the consumer co-operative has made 
a profound impression on the capitaHst system. 

What we are interested in ascertaining at this 



TUB SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY ISl 

point is, has the consumer co-operative menaced 
the entire profit system or only certain factions of 
the capitahst class? An examination of the facts 
soon makes clear that thus far the consumer co- 
operative has held out its greatest menace only to 
that portion of the capitalist class that obtains a 
share of the Surplus Value extracted at the point 
of production by virtue of the part it plays as an 
intermediary between the producer and consumer. 

The middlemen, the merchant class, the handlers 
of consumable wealth, is the class whose existence 
is endangered by the growth of the consumer co- 
operative. The share of Surplus Value which the 
producing capitalists hitherto have beeh compelled 
to give up to the merchant class now flows back 
into the pockets of consumers. 

Marx's conception of the laws of Social Evolu- 
tion made it impossible for him to conceive of a 
gradual ehmination of commodity production under 
capitalist society. The production of use values 
under capitalism was to Marx unthinkable. How 
could the merchant be eliminated when he was 
nothing but ''the agent of productive capital in the 
sphere of circulation"? (Marx.) The merchant 
class has certainly been lulled by Marx into a false 
sense of security. He gave it a lease of hfe equal 
to that of the producing capitalist group. It has 
every reason to regret Marx's fundamental errors. 
The millions that are annually taken from the 
merchants are to them a very painful reminder that 
Marx was mistaken. 



182 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

What is the attitude of the producing capitalists 
— the owners of the means of production — ^toward 
the consumer co-operative? 

The producing capitahst group has brought sys- 
tem and order into the sphere of production. The 
merchant class that undertook to dispose of the 
product, and thus help to reahze more quickly the 
value contained therein, has done little to bring 
order and system into distribution. The anarchy 
and tremendous amount of waste in the sphere of 
circulation cuts deeply into the profit rate. The 
more time it takes to realize the value of the finished 
product the slower is the creation of value and 
Surplus Value. Consequently the producing capi- 
talist group will gladly support any movement that 
will hasten the circulation of commodities. 

It is the merchant class that is principally respon- 
sible for panics and collapse of industry. It buys 
not for a known market of consumers, but for a 
speculative market. The merchant is thus a hin- 
drance to the development of industry. 

The producing capitalist must therefore welcome 
any movement that promises to put the same order 
and system in distribution that it had itself brought 
into production. 

This the consumer co-operative is in a measure 
accompHshing. It buys for a known market. It 
introduces a system into the circulation of com- 
modities that is impossible under merchant 
distribution. 

Another gain that the consumer co-operative 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 1S3 

brings to the producing capitalist is an increased 
home market. The purchasing power of the mem- 
bers of the co-operatives is increased to the extent 
of the merchants' profit; an increase which makes 
itseK felt in an accelerated circulation of commodi- 
ties. There is still another advantage that must 
be noted. The increased purchasing power of the 
members of consumer co-operatives reflects itself in 
a generally improved physical and mental condition. 
This makes them better fitted for efficiency in pro- 
duction. Efficient production is impossible with a 
force that is physically and mentally below par. 
An improved social status of the workers invariably 
reacts to the benefit of the producing capitalists 
in that it makes possible an increase in the ratio 
of exploitation at the point of production. 

Thus we learn once more that it is very much to 
the advantage of the profit system in production to 
eliminate the profit system in distribution. 

But must the consumer co-operative limit itself 
forever to the handling of consumable products? 
Is it impossible for the consumer co-operative to 
attack profit at the point of production? The con- 
sumer co-operative activities cannot end with the 
handling of consumable wealth. The laws that 
brought the consumer co-operatives into existence will 
ultimately force them into the sphere of production. 
Indeed, a good beginning in this direction has al- 
ready been made. 

Let us now compare the consumer co-operative 
with the practical program of the Socialist Party 



184 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

and with the changes that Social Evolution has 
brought about in the extension of the economic 
functions of the State. 

We have seen that these three movements har- 
monize in that all concern themselves with the wel- 
fare of the consumer, with exploitation at the point 
of consumption. We have learned also that con- 
sumer concern is a phenomenon that is not peculiar 
to the present epoch, but is the universal law of 
Social Evolution. 

The pohtical success of the Socialist Party is due 
to the adoption of a consumer program empirically 
arrived at. The difference in the relative success of 
the Socialist Party and the consumer co-operative is 
explained by the fact that the consumer co-operative 
did not have to repudiate any theoretical principles 
in working out its practical program. The time that 
the Marxists spent in fighting each other over the 
inconsistency between their theory and practice, 
the members of the co-operative spent in building 
up their organizations and in extending their influ- 
ence. Nothing else can explain the difference in the 
relative strength of the two movements. 

We must now consider the relative merits of the 
consumer co-operative as the economic expression 
and the extension of the economic functions of the 
State as the political and social expression of the 
operations of the laws of Social Evolution. 

Which offers the best means of attaining the goal 
towards which both are tending? Wliich is the more 
historic and, therefore, the more natural movement? 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 1S5 

"Wliicli is likely to bring about the greater measure 
of social progress in a given time? 

The unprecedented success of the consumer co- 
operative movement has fired the imagination of 
many noble men and women and warmed their 
hearts with its true social spirit. The democracy of 
the movement is an additional source of joy. They 
certainly have sufficient ground for their unbounded 
enthusiasm. Far be it from our purpose to detract 
one iota from the achievements and possibilities of 
the consumer co-operative. But what we should 
seek to ascertain is whether the movement is capable 
of attaining the goal our enthusiasts so hopefully 
predict for it. Is it within the power of the consumer 
co-operative to bring about a complete social trans- 
formation? If it does possess that power, which of 
the two movements operating towards that end is 
the more direct, the more certain and therefore the 
more efficient method of attaining the desired goal? 
Upon which movement shall we place the greater 
emphasis, the economic or the political? 

There are very many good people who have lost 
faith in the political movem^ent. It is not to be 
denied that there has been plenty of justification for 
this. The wrangling of the Marxists, the ever- 
recurring splitting up of the parties into innumerable 
factional groups, the tremendous loss of power that 
inevitably followed, prevented the Socialist parties 
from being the useful human agencies in the stimu- 
lation of Social Evolution that they might have been 
if they had understood the laws of Social Evolution 



186 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

and thus had a scientific explanation for their prac- 
tical activities. 

As for the other agencies that are aiding in the 
work of extending the economic functions of the 
State in response to social interest, this aid coming 
from such unexpected sources and their motives 
being so inexplicable that though the activities are 
based on the same concern as the consumer co- 
operative, that is, the welfare of the consumer, the 
masses held aloof, for they had been told by the 
Marxists to suspect any action other than prole- 
tarian action, for the "economic interests of the 
owners of the means of production and the workers 
are diametrically opposed." 

The only alternative then was the economic move- 
ment of the consumer on his own behalf through the 
consumer co-operative. The uninterrupted success 
of the movement, the harmony, unity and true com- 
radeship that prevailed in striking contrast to the con- 
dition within the Socialist parties; all these seemed 
to indicate that here at last was the movement that 
would prove the most efficient and direct means of 
ushering in the social transformation. Does Social 
Evolution justify this behef? Has the consumer 
co-operative any limitations? If so, what are they? 

In the first place, the consumer co-operative func- 
tions only for a portion of society. We have seen 
that all social wealth is the product of every useful 
member of society. It is society that produces aU 
value and therefore all Surplus Value. If the 
merchant class that obtains a portion of this Surplus 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 187 

Value from the original expropriators is expropriated, 
the portion of Surplus Value taken from it belongs 
to all useful members of society. When the consumer 
co-operative takes this portion and divides it exclu- 
sively among its own members, it distributes not 
what rightfully belongs to them, but has simply 
taken the Surplus Value from the merchant and 
given it to a privileged group. So far as society is 
concerned, it is still robbed of Surplus Value, the 
only change being in the number of the robbers. 
This is clearly brought out by the fact that non- 
members must pay full value at the consumer co- 
operative stores and obtain no dividends. The mem- 
bers furnished the merchants' capital instead of the 
merchant and participate in the merchants' profit 
instead of the merchant. Marx has analyzed in 
detail the proportion and rate of this profit in rela- 
tion to productive capital. 

The consumer co-operatives are therefore capitalist 
concerns, each member of which is a Httle "capital- 
ist" exploiting society. We must recognize, of 
course, that the consumer co-operative does not seek 
to be a close corporation; its doors are thrown wide 
open to all. The consumer co-operative has a social 
ideal, but its methods must necessarily be capitalis- 
tic. It is well for those who claim that the consumer 
co-operatives are free from the taint of capitalism 
and that they stand for unalloyed democracy to 
bear these facts in mind. 

The consumer co-operative is not the direct method 
of ehminating the capitahst system. It is, on the 



188 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

contrary, a most devious method that is hedged in 
by innumerable inherent difficulties, most of which 
are insurmountable. 

The first threat of the consumer co-operative is 
held out, as we have seen, against the merchant, 
both wholesale and retail. Wliile historic condi- 
tions favor the co-operatives, nevertheless these or- 
. ganizations will not yield without putting up a stub- 
born resistance. They are powerfully entrenched and 
can make things mighty uncomfortable for the young 
and weak consumer co-operative that may be trying 
to obtain a foothold. 

Then again, the extension of the consmner co- 
operative is automatically hmited. We have seen 
that Social Evolution has forced the State to attack 
the capitahst system from four different ''fronts": 
(1) social and industrial reform; (2) the elimination 
of the capitahst principle from transportation and 
communication; (3) direct taxation, and (4) distri- 
bution. The consumer co-operative has thus far 
been compelled to limit its activities to practically 
one field, distribution. The inherent nature of the 
co-operative is such as to make it best qualified to 
supply immediate and direct needs. 

Railroads, telegraph, cable and telephone lines, 
electric, gas and water supply, etc., etc., are all be- 
yond the reach of consumer co-operatives. Even 
export trade is more or less barred to the co-opera- 
tive. It is evident that by its own unaided efforts 
the consumer co-operative could not possibly bring 
about a complete social transformation. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY ISO 

The well meaning enthusiasts who hold out such 
a possibility little realize the harm they bring to 
the cause of social progress. "Let us prove that we 
can do without the coercive power of the State," 
is their cry. "Let us do things for ourselves without 
asking or accepting aid from the State." Such doc- 
trines as these tend to perpetuate the capitalist 
system rather than to undermine it. They glorify 
economic action and spurn politics. 

These good people fail to realize the full signifi- 
cance of their teachings. They would probably be 
astounded to learn how thoroughly antisocial are 
the doctrines they preach. 

They wish to accomphsh things without the aid 
of the State. They prefer a civil war "between two 
portions of the people," as Marx and Kautsky pre- 
dicted. Wliile the latter expected that the civil war 
would be fought between the two portions grouped 
as producers against the owners of the means of 
production, the former group them as consumers 
against the handlers of consumable wealth, "a 
long-drawn-out civil war without battles or blood- 
shed." (Kautsky.) 

Nothing could suit the capitalist class better than 
to have the slowly built-up confidence in political 
action which has at last been instilled into the 
masses suddenly broken down through the efforts of 
their own leaders. 

To the war between the consumer co-operative 
and the merchant, the great mass of non-members 
must remain indifferent. It can be safely assumed 



190 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

that the capitaHst group will not prove such brainless 
idiots as to disdain to ask or accept aid from the 
State. On the contrary, they will leave nothing 
undone in an effort to obtain it. They will try to 
make it appear that their interests are identical 
with the interests of all who are outside of the 
co-operative membership. 

Let us not forget that thus far the consumer co- 
operatives have been aided very largely by the fact 
that they have actually benefited producing capital, 
which is the basic and most powerful form of all 
capital. But when the time is reached for the con- 
sumer co-operative to begin a real invasion of the 
productive field things will not go so smoothly. 

If the leaders of the consumer co-operative suc- 
ceed in their propaganda against "asking or accept- 
ing aid from the State," if they wish to weaken their 
offensive and defensive powers by limiting them- 
selves solely to the economic weapon, they will find 
themselves alone in a fight against powerful foes 
who will know how to make good use of the State; 
the weapon that the co-operatives were too short- 
sighted to lay hold of and use in their own 
interest. 

The trade unions as the organization of producers 
have gone through all that. They disdained to make 
use of the power of the State. Experience has at 
last taught its bitter lesson, and to-day trade unions 
everywhere show a tendency to turn to political 
action as the true way out. On taking this step, 
they at once drop their antisocial character, or 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 191 

rather confine it to its proper sphere, the point of 
production, and use their political power to cham- 
pion their larger interests, their interests as citizens, 
social beings and consumers. Instead of separating 
themselves from the rest of society as is the case 
when they fight as trade unionists, they form a com- 
ponent of society with common social interests. 

The experience of the consumer co-operative 
ought to bring a salutary lesson home to the leaders 
of this movement. This experience, instead of under- 
mining their faith in political action, ought to arouse 
their enthusiasm for it as being after all the only 
social agency capable of steering directly towards 
the final goal. 

If the economic consumer movement has done so 
well, how much better would the political consumer 
movement have done, is the question the leaders of 
the consumer co-operative ought constantly to keep 
before them. 

"WTien the political consumer movement compels 
the State to undertake an economic function we ob- 
tain a real transformation, the capitalist condition 
is done away- with and the use condition takes its 
place. This economic function is forever lost to the 
capitalist class as a profit yielder. The Surplus Value 
cut off from the capitalist group that had been the 
recipient of it heretofore is not thereby merely trans- 
ferred to another group, but is restored to society 
as a whole, whence it was originally taken. 

There are yet other considerations that unerringly 
point to the political consumer movement as the all- 

13 



192 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

embracing and most direct means of bringing about 
the abolition of the capitahst system. 

All economic functions must be financed. The 
leaders of the consumer co-operatives will readily 
assent to this. That has been their one great prob- 
lem. The co-operatives were compelled to obtain 
their financial resources from the scant wages of their 
members. No other source was available. When 
society, on the other hand, is compelled by its 
citizenship to undertake an economic function, what 
happens? Society uses its power of direct taxation 
to take from the entire capitalist class a portion of the 
Surplus Value it had extracted from society. Society 
uses this capital for the purpose of expropriating a 
group of capitalists who Hve through profit. 

Thus the capitalist class is compelled to furnish 
the money that is required in the process of under- 
mining the capitalist system. By this method society 
kills two birds with one stone. Surely, the political 
consumer movement has some merits that should 
commend it to the consideration of the leaders of 
the economic consumer movement who boast that 
they refuse to ask or accept aid from the State. 

Once the citizens in their organized capacity as the 
Government undertake an economic function, the 
combined capitalist class is helpless against it. If, 
on the other hand, the citizens should act on the 
advice of the consumer co-operator and leave the 
State in the hands of the capitalists, these will turn 
the State against its citizens and make it serve the 
interests of the capitalists. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 193 

The history of the past fifty years furnishes a con- — /; 
tinuous and unbroken record of organized society's 
attacks upon the profit system. Labor legislation, 
social legislation, assumption of economic functions, 
direct taxation, public education, public health ser- 
vice, etc., etc., each and all of these represents an 
attack upon the profit system. 

The organized power of the State was put behind 
these attacks; therefore, they could not fail of 
success. Who has reason to fear and distrust the 
State, the capitalist class or the great body of 
consumers? 

It must be remembered that heretofore Social 
Evolution has worked blindly, mthout a clear com- 
prehension on the part of society as to whither it was 
tending. To-day we know the historic purpose of 
Social Evolution. To-day we know the historic 
function of the State as an instrument in the hands 
of Social Evolution. Political democracy has placed 
the control of the State in the hands of the people. 
The people must use the State as the only means of 
abolishing the old form of society and ushering in 
the new. 

The Marxists fail to understand all this. They 
still talk of the capitalist State as if nothing had hap- 
pened since Mai'x's time. They wish to aboHsh the 
capitalist State. They expect to abolish it through 
the efforts of the producers. They believe in po- 
litical action, not as a means of using the State, but 
rather as a means of destroying the State. It must 
be a class movement. Such is their theory. In prac- 



194 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

tice they make a complete shift and become a po- 
litical consumer movement. This fatal inconsis- 
tency has paralyzed their activities, brought strife 
within their organizations and killed their usefulness 
as a constructive social agency. 

The consumer co-operator, on the other hand, 
while consistent with Social Evolution in that he 
concerns himself with the welfare of the consumer, 
with consumable wealth, by his blind faith in the 
possibilities of consumer economic action and his 
distrust of political consumer action puts himself in 
the class with those who would obstruct the processes 
of Social Evolution. 

If the Marxists had scientific principles as a basis 
for their consumer practical program, if the consumer 
co-operatives had a real appreciation of the inherent 
deficiencies and limitations of their economic move- 
ment; if these limitations had succeeded in convinc- 
ing them that, after all, the political consumer 
movement alone is capable of working out the his- 
toric social transformation, and if as a result of this 
knowledge both of these movements in conjunction 
with the political parties of the trade union move- 
ment and the Non-Partisan League, representing 
the tillers of the soil, were to throw themselves be- 
hind the processes of Social Evolution, who can doubt 
the result? How social progress would bound for- 
ward in response to this great stimulus; how the 
social consciousness would go out to all these move- 
ments and for the first time bring harmony, order 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 195 

and unity of action into conflicting movements 
having a common purpose. 

We would then witness not a class struggle, not a 
civil war, not one portion of the people against an- 
other, but a conscious, united movement composed 
of every useful member of society using its organized 
power through the State against a class — the profit- 
making class. Such power would prove irresistible. 
The capitalist class would be compelled to give 
way like snow before the noonday sun. The profit- 
making class is fully conscious of the threat held 
out to it by the State. The capitalists know that the 
State possesses the necessary power to bring about 
their expropriation. Many avenues of profit-making 
have already been taken away and forever closed to 
them. The capitalists know their doom is sealed. 
Their only hope lies in delay. Nothing could please 
them better than to see their opponents divided. 
In a political democracy the State obeys the will of 
the majority. The majority is master, the State is 
servant. As long as the opponents of profit spend 
their time snarling at each other, capital has little 
to fear. Its lease of life is prolonged. 

But it is impossible that the lessons of Social 
Evolution will be entirely lost upon those who are 
interested in accelerating its process. They are 
bound to learn its method and divine its purpose. 
The arrival of that day will witness a new era, a new 
hope will arise in the breast of man. 



CHAPTER XV 

WAR AS A FORCE IN SOCIAL EVOLUTION 

Prior to July, 1914, before the bestialities of Hell 
were turned loose upon an unsuspecting world, 
there may have been found, here and there, an 
individual with atavistic tendencies who could con- 
done war. But to the great majority comprising the 
international human family, the very thought of 
war was abhorrent. The Socialists very naturally 
shared this abhorrence in common with their fellows. 
But the humanitarian was not the only ground upon 
which Socialists based their opposition to war. 
"The Socialist opposition to war," says Hillquit, 
"is based not merely on humanitarian grounds, 
potent and compelUng as these are, but principally 
on the deep-rooted conviction that modern wars 
are, at the bottom, sanguinary struggles for the 
commercial advantages of the possessing classes 
and that they are disastrous to the cause of the 
workers, their struggles and aspirations, their 
rights and liberties."^ Now what is it that 
forms the basis for this deep-rooted conviction that 
wars are disastrous to the cause of the workers? 

^ A7nerican Socialists and the War, 1917. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 197 

The basis for this conviction is to be found in 
Marxian principles. Marxian principles teach that 
the laws of social progress operate through the class 
struggle. Whatever progress has thus far been at- 
tained is the fruit of years of slow, laborious opera- 
tion of this conflict. War, say the Marxists, gives 
the capitalist class the welcomed opportunity of 
sweeping away at one blow the previous gains that 
cost the workers years of struggle and effort. 

War must make for social retrogression; Marxian 
principles admit of no escape from this conclusion. 
Algernon Lee upbraids Joshua Wanhope for over- 
looking this fact. In a signed article, captioned, 
''Anti-Militarism: A Question of Principle or Only 
of Policy?" he says: 

It [war] is a vital question in its bearing upon the present interests 
and the fut^ire progress of our class. ... If we believed that two or 
three years of world-\\dde war would put an end to class rule 
and usher in the co-operative commonwealth and the effective 
brotherhood of man, it would be our duty to do all in our power 
to bring about such a war, reckoning it a hght price for the world 
to pay for pennanent escape from class rule and exploitation. 
Now, if some party member sincerely holds such a crazy idea — 
and it is not out of all possibility that some do — is he free to go 
on the platform or use the public press for the propagation of 
that idea? Would it be grossly hitolcrant for the party to censure 
him, to call on him either to quit his advocacy of war or else to 
leave the party, and if he did neither, even to expel and pubhcly 
repucUate him?^ [My itahcs.] 

Any man who wishes to remain \v^thin the Party 
must subscribe to the IMarxian principle that social 

1 New York Call, January 6, 1917. 



198 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

progress can only be attained through the class 
struggle and therefore nothing but retrogression can 
result from war. 

We do not wish to be accused of presenting the 
views of but one faction of the Socialist Party. 
Louis B. Boudin is recognized as a Marxian scholar 
and revolutionary Socialist. What is his interpre- 
tation of Marxian principles in relation to war? 

When the famous St. Louis Majority Report was 
brought in from committee, Boudin submitted a 
minority report, the second paragraph of which 
reads : 

At the very outset we desire to declare our unalterable opposi- 
tion to all wars declared and prosecuted by any ruling class, no 
matter what the ostensible purpose. We believe that the interest 
of the great toiling masses cannot possibly be served by any such war. 
And we particularly warn the workers against this snare and 
delusion of so-called defensive wars and wars for the alleged 
furtherance of democracy. [My itaUcs.] 

We thus see that the spokesmen of both wings are 
in complete accord as to the relation of war to social 
progress. 

It may, however, be best to give the official position 
of the Socialist Party on this vital question. This 
is to be found in the Majority Report adopted by 
the St. Louis National Convention (1917) and rati- 
fied by a majority of the party membership. In 
this report we read that: 

Wars bring wealth and power to the ruling classes, and suffer- 
ing, death and demoralization to the workers. . . . The wars of 



TJIE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 199 

the contending national groups of capitalists arc not the concern 
of the workers. 

Has the World War borne out the conclusions that 
war must make for social retrogression? Where is 
there the Marxian scholar with the courage to affirm 
this? It surely would not be Hillquit. What a 
difference one short year can make! In July, 1917, 
we find him stating that 'Hhe Socialist opposition 
to wars is based principally on the deep-rooted con- 
viction that they are disastrous to the cause of the 
workers," and one year later he tells us that: 

One of the peculiar paradoxes of the war has been that it has 
advanced the labor movement all over the ivorld. . . . Another great 
feature in this war has advanced the labor and Socialist movements 
to the first place — the natural instinctive democracy that the war 
has brought. . . . Another great tendency in war times which 
strengthens the progressive labor movement all over the world is the 
institution of collective ownership, management and control of 
industries which has been estabUshed in all civilized countries 
as a war measure. All these are not things desired or designed 
by anybody. They do not justify war. But they explain why 
the indirect residt of the war has been to strengthen the radical labor 
movement and the Socialist movement all over the world.^ [My 
italics.] 

There is certainly considerable contrast in these 
two views. It is important to note, however, that 
the first is a deduction based on Marxian principles, 
whereas the second is but the recounting of historic 
facts. 

Hillquit in no way repudiates the principles upon 

1 "Labor and the War," in the Liberator, July, 1918. 



200 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

which he based his first conclusions. The social 
progress arising from the war he calls a peculiar 
'paradox. Strengthening of the radical, labor and 
Socialist movement all over the world has been the 
indirect result of the war! And this is offered as a 
* ' scientific ' ' explanation ! 

And Algernon Lee, whose Marxian conceptions 
led him in 1917 to proclaim that a man must be crazy 
to hold an idea that a social revolution could result 
from the war is to-day the principal speaker at 
meetings called together for the purpose of cele- 
brating the revolutions in Russia, Germany and 
Hungary! 

What about Louis Boudin? Oh, yes, we must not 
forget to note that he, too, is a perfectly consistent 
''Marxist." After stating in his minority report 
that "at the very outset we desire to declare our 
unalterable opposition to all wars declared and prose- 
cuted by any ruling class, no matter what the ostensible 
purpose, (as) we believe that the interest of the great 
toiling masses cannot possibly be served by any such 
war," he brings in a resolution before the 1918 New 
York State convention which reads as follows: 

We deem all demands for the withdrawal of troops of the 
United States from abroad not in consonance with the principles 
of International Socialism or the policies of the International 
working class. . . .^ [My italics.] 

Such is the consistency of the followers of the 
Marxian philosophy which they claim is founded 
upon the science and laws of Social Evolution. 

1 Louis Boudin, New York State Convention, 1918. 



THE SOCIAL INTEIWRETATION OF IllHTORY 201 

Let US now ascertain if Social Evolution is given 
to peculiar paradoxes and why it acted on the crazy 
idea of bringing about social revolutions by means 
of war. 

What is war? War is a challenge to national 
existence. Vast national possessions that took hun- 
dreds and perhaps thousands of years to acquire may 
be snatched away by a victorious foe. The lives not 
only of its army but of the civil population are placed 
in serious jeopardy. War brings a modern nation 
face to face with the basic problem of primitive man, 
tlie problem of existence. 

To meet the problem, primitive man used the 
weapons and methods that in his limited experience 
had proved most effective. It is hardly to be ex- 
pected that modern nations would do less. War is a 
social problem. It is the social problem, the problem 
of existence. The nation throws in every resource 
available to it in an effort to successfully meet that 
problem. The people comprising a nation look to 
the Government they support to protect them 
against the menace to their existence. What does 
the Government do? War is a contest. Each op- 
ponent must study the methods and weapons 
of the other with a view not only of duplicat- 
ing them, which only negatives the power of the 
opponent, but of superseding them and thus insuring 
a victory. 

The opponent has placed an army in the field. 
It must be met with an army equally as large and 
larger. What is an army? An army is made up of 



202 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

the best manhood of a nation, each member of which 
is expected to risk his hfe in the defense of that na- 
tion. On what principle is this demand based? On 
the principle that national interests supersede all 
personal interests. The interests of a group must 
become subservient to the interests of the majority. 
In war and in peace, this has been the ruling prin- 
ciple ever since man became a social being. 

But in modern times the manhood of a nation con- 
stitutes but one element in the problem of national 
defense. Armies must be supplied with food, clothing 
and complex engines of destruction. The means of 
production that had been perfected in the effort to 
solve the problem of existence must, now that na- 
tional existence is suddenly endangered, be driven 
to the utmost in an effort to overcome the imminent 
danger. 

Intensity of production and distribution becomes 
the real test, the real war duel, with the prize of vic- 
tory going to the nation that has obtained the best 
results. 

Social processes must now evolve at an unpre- 
cedented speed. The rate at which they proceed in 
peace times in their purpose to solve the problem of 
existence would, in war times, make for national 
suicide. Social processes must, therefore, be speeded 
up. But the law that controls their operation is the 
same as in peace times. The harmony of interest 
of the majority as social beings always furnishes the 
basis for the operations of Social Evolution. 

Modern wars are wars of nations rather than wars 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 203 

of armies. As soon as war is declared, in response 
to the economic interests of the majority as social 
beings or consumers, organized society at once pro- 
ceeds to concern itself with the problem of con- 
sumption. The army must be supplied first. The 
civilians must be supplied or they will not be able to 
support the army. Social Evolution forces organized 
society, through its goverimient, to assume economic 
functions. 

There are four great divisions to the economic 
functions of a nation: production, transportation, 
communication and distribution. Each of these in 
peace times has been developed through private 
effort on the profit principle. In war times the social 
interests of the majority demand intensification 
in all departments. What happens? Society pro- 
ceeds to assume the economic functions of such 
departments as prove inadequate to meet the im- 
minent problem of national existence. The first to 
be taken over are the means of transportation atid 
communication. Why? Because in private hands 
they lack efficiency. Society, in self-protection, will 
not permit monopoly in private hands. But it is 
monopoly that makes for the elimination of waste 
and development of efficiency. Society, therefore, 
itself becomes the monopohst and takes over the 
means of transportation and communication. 

Thus the social interests of the majority demand 
the elimination of the capitalist principle from these 
departments. The capitalists who owned these 
properties were compelled to yield up their immediate 



204 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

interests when they conflicted with the social in- 
terests of the majority. Social Evolution concerned 
itself first with these functions because of their 
important relation to both production and distribu- 
tion. Social Evolution does not operate violently. 
It seeks to attain its purpose without friction. The 
capitalists who were eliminated from control of a 
social function were nevertheless not expropriated 
entirely. Society guaranteed them the income of 
normal times. 

The next function with which society concerned 
itself was that of distribution. Every item that en- 
ters into the daily needs of the consumer became a 
matter of social concern. How often one may eat 
meat, what kind and how many rolls one may have 
for breakfast, how many inches long one's coat may 
be, how many pockets may have flaps, etc., etc.; 
all of these become matters of social concern. In a 
word, distribution of consumable wealth became a 
national issue. 

Next came production. How did Social Evolution, 
accelerated by the war emergency, deal with the 
capitaUst mode of production? Was production 
taken out of private hands and sociaHzed as were 
transportation, communication and distribution? 
Not at all. Why not? Because the capitalist mode of 
production proved that it was not an outworn system 
of production. On the contrary, it showed itself 
possessed of a tremendous amount of latent vitality. 
It proved responsive and equal to every demand that 
Social Evolution made upon it. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 205 

Plere is something to ponder over for the Mai*xians 
who have been mouthing formulas Marx framed 
some seventy-five years ago. ''The capitaHst mode 
of production has outworn its usefuhiess and must be 
discarded," they thunder. And they make this 
claim in peace times. On all sides of them Social 
Evolution shows marked tendencies to concern itself 
with other departments of social relations. But they 
refuse to be lured from their monotonous chant, for 
they are scientific Socialists. 

Yet when these ''outworn" methods of produc- 
tion were put to the severest test in their history 
they proved that, far from outworn, they were 
capable of undreamed of expansion. 

It is the capitalist mode of exchange and not the 
mode of production that proved itself outworn. 
And it did not require a world war to demonstrate 
this. Mai'x and Engels noted this fact when they 
wrote the Communist Mmvifesto. Crises and over- 
production are not to be charged to the capitalist 
mode of production, but to the capitalist mode of 
exchange. Marx and Engels because of their class 
struggle theory as the historic law of social progress 
could not separate the mode of exchange from the 
mode of production. The whole capitalist system 
must be overthrown at one time through the over- 
throw of the capitalist mode of production. There- 
fore, as far back as 1847 we find them saying that /f 
"for many a decade past the history of industry ct^ / c^- 
and commerce is but the history of the revolt of 
modern producilvc forces against modern conditions 



20G THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

of production." ^ Yet Engels seemed to realize that it 
was the mode of exchange that was outworn and 
hampered the wheels of progress and not the mode 
of production. 2 The reahzation of the fact that the 
mode of production rises in rebellion against the form 
of exchange did not mean to him that Social Evolu- 
tion would bring about an alteration in the mode 
of exchange; rather was it one more proof that 
the capitalist mode of production must soon be 
eliminated. 

Were Engels living to-day, however, unlike pres- 
ent-day Marxians, he would hardly have retained 
that view. Marx and Engels were the masters, not 
the slaves of formulas. Shortly before his death, 
Engels recognized that both he and Marx had erred 
fundamentally. 

History proved [said he] that we were wrong — we and those 
who, like us, in 1848 awaited the speedy success of the prole- 
tariat. It became perfectly clear that economic conditions all 
over the continent were by no means as yet sufficiently matured 
for superseding the capitahst organization of production. This 
was proved by the economic revolution which commenced on 
the continent of Europe in 1848, and developed in France, 
Austria-Hungary, Poland and recently also in Russia and 
made Germany into an industrial state of the fii'st rank — all 
on a capitalist basis, which shows that in 1848 the prevailing con- 
ditions were still capable of expansion.^ [My italics.] 

Engels, like Marx, was a student, and as such 
conformed his conclusions to the teachings of his- 



^ Communist Manifesto, p. 21. 

^ Socialism Utopian and Scientific, p. 13S. 

' 1895 Preface to Marx's Civil War in France. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 207 

tory instead of seeking to conform history to his 
conclusions. 

Marx^ gave utterance to a great truth when he 
said that one form of society never perishes before all 
the productive forces are evolved for which it is suffi- 
ciently comprehensive. 

Thus does Marx furnish present-day Marxians 
with a solution to the problem that has puzzled 
their brains as to why capitalist society still persists. 
The capitalist mode of production is far from ex- 
hausted. It is still capable of expansion. What it 
demands is better transportation and distribution. 
The possibihties of these as capitalist institutions 
have long been exhausted. It is therefore to the 
common interest of producing capital and society 
to bring about the socialization of these departments. 
Of all forms of capital, producing capital alone has 
not outlived its usefulness. It is still capable of 
advancing social progress and in consequence is the 
powerful element in society which, in combination 
with the useful, forms the majority necessary to set 
Social Evolution in motion. 

When society assumes the economic functions of 
transportation, communication and distribution, 
the barrier which these have hitherto offered to pro- 
duction is removed. Crises and over-production 
become automatically abolished. Now all atten- 
tion becomes focused upon production. Productive 
capital is for the first time compelled to answer the 
imperative historic question, "Can you fulfill social 

' Preface — A Contribution to the Criticism of Political Economy, •' 
14 



208 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

needs? Can you solve the basic economic problem, 
the problem of existence, to the solution of which 
all social history has been devoted?" It is not over- 
production, but under-production, that compels a 
change in the conditions of production. 

In the war through which we have just passed, 
social concern reached back to production by way of 
transportation and distribution. With these solved, 
but the needs still unmet, society for the first time 
was compelled to interfere in production. Society 
did not take over the function of production, but 
confined itself to dictating what should be produced. 
Needless duplication and wasteful methods were 
ehminated. Efficiency was furthered in every pos- 
sible way. But beyond that production was not 
disturbed. On the contrary, unhke other forms of 
capital, productive capital made fabulous profits, 
because it came nearest to fulfilhng social needs. 

Society, nevertheless, reimbursed itself by raising 
the income tax rates to unprecedented propor- 
tions. 

It is evident that Social Evolution is not governed 
by two different sets of laws: one for peace and one 
for war. It also becomes evident that war does not 
and cannot nullify the operations of Social Evolu- 
tion that are manifest in times of peace. On the con- 
trary, but one and the same set of laws control the 
operations of Social Evolution in peace as well as in 
war. There is a difference, but it is a difference of 
degree and not of method. 

In war and in peace, the major economic problem, 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 209 

the problem of existence, governs the operations of 
Social Evolution. In war and in peace, the social 
interests of the majority determine the operations of 
Social Evolution. In war and in peace, the develop- 
ment of national production is of common interest 
to the majority as social beings. In war and in 
peace, all modes of transportation and distribution 
that act as a check upon the development of produc- 
tion must, in the interest of the majority as social 
beings, be discarded and replaced by new and more 
efficient methods. In war and in peace when a mode 
of production freed from the handicapping influence 
of inefficient transportation and distribution, on 
reaching its maximum efficiency, demonstrates that 
it is incapable of solving the problem of national 
existence, the social interests of the majority demand 
that it be discarded and replaced by a more efficient 
mode of production. Such is the inexorable law of 
social change. 

Present-day Marxians are not students, but bhnd 
worshippers of the past. When asked how is the 
tremendous rate of social progress following in the 
wake of the Great War to be explained they tell us: 
"It is a peculiar paradox"! 

To the people of every nation involved, the World 
War brought home the lesson of the common social 
interest of all classes as against the opponent. All 
classes rallied to the defense of national existence. 
There was, however, one group in every nation that 
refused all aid to the common social problem. In 
the European countries this group consisted of a 



210 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

small number of Left Wing, revolutionary Marxians. 
In the United States, opposition was the official 
stand of the Socialist Party. We have already 
quoted some of the official spokesmen in explanation 
of this. There is the humanitarian ground which is 
common to every normal human being. But the 
scientific ground was that the war would make for 
social retrogression. If they believed that the war — 
which succeeded in cementing all elements in society 
— would make for social progress, they would not 
on humanitarian grounds have withlield their sup- 
port. The American Socialist Party makes this 
point quite clear. It states that ''the only struggle 
which would justify the workers in taking up arms 
is the great struggle of the working class of the world 
to free itself from economic exploitation and political 
oppression."^ 

This is the consistent Marxian position. Anti- 
social civil war is the only war sanctioned by Marxian 
principles. The opposition in the European coun- 
tries took the identical position. Those Socialists 
who did come to the .support of their respective na- 
tions were excoriated as traitors to the working 
class; ''social patriots " who had repudiated Marxian 
principles. Marxian principles teach that social 
progress can only be attained through antisocial 
conflict. Therefore, a true Marxian can never give 
his support to a common social problem. 

But the war did bring about social progress in 
every country. Nay, more than that, it actually 

I Majority Report adopted by St. Louis (1917) Convention. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 211 

brought about a nice crop of revolutions that toppled 
over thrones and dynasties so swiftly that one could 
hardly follow their chronological order. 

But did all this convey any meaning to Marxian 
scientific (!) Socialists? Let us see. 



CHAPTER XVI 

THE KUSSIAN REVOLUTION 

The first throne to topple was that of his majesty, 
Nicholas II, Czar of all the Russias. Was this an 
accident or is there an historic explanation for this 
phenomenon? 

War, as we have seen, is a social problem, the 
problem of national existence. The people rally to 
the support of their Government and put their pos- 
sessions and their lives at its disposal to be used in 
defense of national existence. The backward Rus- 
sian nation in a test of strength with a fully de- 
veloped industrial nation hke Germany was doomed 
to defeat. This outcome could not possibly have 
been avoided even if the Government were heart 
and soul with the people. But it is a well-known fact 
that the reactionary and corrupt Russian Govern- 
ment shamefully betrayed its people. The people 
were compelled to take over the prosecution of the 
war into their own hands. 

They organized the resources of the nation and 
struggled to maintain an efficient and equipped army 
in the field. All classes were a unit in their determi- 
nation to defend their national existence. Opposition 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 213 

was met only from the two antisocial elements, the 
Czar's Government and the revolutionary Marxian 
Socialists. The Government, of course, was at that 
time the principal impediment to national security. 
National existence united all the people against the 
Government and the Govermnent was abolished. 
It was a social revolution because it promoted the 
social interests of all classes in Russian society. 
Due to the fact that the majority of the people were 
behind it, the revolution was swift, sure and com- 
paratively bloodless. 

The Marxian scientific Socialists, like Lenine and 
Trotsky, had done nothing to bring about the revo- 
lution. Neither of them was in the country at the 
time. But their disciples did everything in their 
power to split the united people into class-warring 
groups. If they had succeeded, the revolution 
would have been defeated. The revolution of 1905 
would have been successful if it hadn't been for the 
antisocial activities of the Marxians. 

The people proceeded to create a constitutional 
form of government that was calculated to advance 
the social interests of the Russian people and place 
them in the first rank of democratic nations. In- 
dustrial development would have proceeded at an 
unprecedented rate, due to great natural resources 
and financial support from advanced nations. The 
road would have been quickly paved for the historic 
basis for social change. 

But Messrs. Lenine and Trotsky were too scientific 
to understand all this. Didn't they learn from Marx 



214 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie had conflict- 
ing interests? Didn't Marx prove that labor creates 
all value and that all exploitation takes place at the 
point of production? Didn't he tell us that social 
progress is registered through the class struggle? 
The thing, therefore, for a true Marxian to do is to 
wage the class struggle against the exploiters. 
Through this struggle lies the road to progress. 
Away with the bourgeoisie, and the capitalist mode 
of production! 

Marx,^ of course, had said that new or higher condi- 
tions of production never step on the scene before the 
material conditions of existence of the same have come 
to light out of the womb of the old society. 

But that was only an incidental statement written 
in a preface and therefore could not have much of an 
historic significance. Anyway, the great Marxians, 
Lenine and Trotsky, didn't pay the slightest atten- 
tion to it. But the class struggle, ah! there is the 
heart and kernel of social history! Let us stick 
to the class struggle and we can't go wrong. 

So, no sooner is the Russian social revolution an 
accomplished fact and bids fair to bring to that un- 
happy country a certain measure of social progress, 
than Messrs. Lenine and Trotsky arrive just in time 
to defeat this underhand plot. "We must have the 
class war and the dictatorship of the proletariat," 
they thunder. Down with the bourgeoisie; the wage 
worker alone creates all wealth ; away with the rest ! 

Russia is now under the dictatorship of the pro- 

* A Contribution to the Criticism of Political Economij. (My italics.) 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 215 

letariat. The class war is raging. The civil war 
they had always dreamed of is gradually assuming 
the form of a nightmare. Civil war is a game two 
can play at! It remains to be seen which will 
conquer. 

Lenine and Trotsky had always leveled their 
shafts of criticism against the other Marxians for 
their inconsistent and compromising ways. But how 
did Lenine and Trotsky attain their power and how 
have they maintained it? They succeeded in under- 
mining the Kerensky Government because of their 
promise of immediate peace and bread. No sooner 
did they obtain power than they at once embarked 
upon a civil war which is growing in fury while the 
World War has come to an end. The proletariat of 
Russia is still waiting for the bread promised them 
by Lenine and Trotsky. 

When the question of dealings with other nations 
came up, Trotsky^ expressed himself in no uncertain 
terms. ''It is impossible," he said, ''even to discuss 
a Russo-American aUiance. Socialist Russia can 
never place itself under obUgations to capitahst 
America." 

One year later, we read this headline: "The 
Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic is pre- 
paring to do a business of !tt>l,500,000,000 with the 
United States! "2 

Such is the consistent and uncompromising posi- 
tion of Lenine and Trotsky. To-day we witness the 



» New York Call, March 20, 1918. 
2 New York Call, April 9, 1919. 



216 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

spectacle of the official representative of the Soviet 
Government in this country dogging the footsteps 
of the capitalist-imperiahsts of America, the Export- 
ing Manufacturers' Association, in an effort to 
establish trade relations. 

It may be said, of course, that such compromise 
is unavoidable in the present international situa- 
tion. Let us turn our attention then to Russia 
proper. Surely, here we will find a consistent, un- 
compromising position. How could it be otherwise? 

Certainly no one can believe that Lenine and Trot- 
sky are monsters who derive fiencUsh joy out of the 
murder of noble men and women whom but yester- 
day they called Comrades. No, Lenine and Trotsky 
were compelled to resort to murder because of their 
unflinching devotion to their principles. The op- 
posing Comrades would have compromised with the 
bourgeoisie. It was the duty of Lenine and Trotsky 
to prevent a compromise, be the cost what it may. 
It is terrible to have to shoot down your Comrades, 
but to compromise with the bourgeoisie is a still 
greater crime. Lenine and Trotsky unhesitatingly 
chose the lesser of the two evils. 

With the compromising Comrades conveniently 
out of the way, Lenine and Trotsky were free to put 
into effect their uncompromising principles. They 
proclaimed the dictatorship of the proletariat. The 
bourgeoisie was completely excluded. Lenine and 
Trotsky were intoxicated with joy. The dream of 
their lives was at last realized. The price was high 
but justified by the results. The class struggle ended 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 217 

in a complete victory for the proletariat. The indus- 
tries now belong to the producers and they obtain 
"the full product of their toil." 

Translated into practical achievements, what did 
all this spell for the workers? Collapse of industry, 
commercial chaos and starvation. Lenine and 
Trotsky had failed the masses. They had promised 
peace and bread; they brought neither peace nor 
bread. Dictatorship of the proletariat means star- 
vation for the proletariat. Victory for uncom- 
promising principles means industrial stagnation and 
disorganization. 

Unfortunately, it is not theories but bread that 
sustains Hfe. Lenine and Trotsky had to be taught 
this by bitter experience. They banqueted the 
masses on revolutionary speeches which, while they 
thrilled, failed to fill the stomach. The demand for 
bread grew louder and more insistent. The reign of 
the dictatorship of the proletariat was menaced by 
the proletariat. Something had to be done, and 
quickly, too. Lenine and Trotsky, who preferred 
to spill the blood of their Comrades, rather than 
compromise with the bourgeoisie, were compelled 
to turn to the bourgeoisie for help. Bitter experi- 
ence had taught them a sober lesson. Lenine now 
tells us that: 

Without the direction of specialists of different branches of knowl- 
edge, technique and experience tJie tra^isformation toward Socialism 
is impossible. . . . Bid tlie specialists are inevitably bourgeois. . . . 
Although we have succeeded in defeating sabotage, we have not 
vet created an environment which would put at oui' disposal the 



218 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

bourgeois specialist. . . . We were forced now to make use of the 
old bourgeois method and agree to a very high remuneration for 
the services of the biggest of the bourgeois specialists. ... It is clear 
that the measure is a compromise. 

FurtheiTOore, it is clear that such a measure is not merely a 
Juilt in a certain part and to a certain degree of the offensive 
against capitalism, but also a step backward by our Socialist 
Soviet State. ^ 



Such is the graphic picture of "uncompromising" 
revohitionary Marxians in action. Oh, strange spec- 
tacle! The bourgeoisie practices sabotage and the 
"dictatorship of the proletariat" resents it! 

To what degree have the practical lessons, as nar- 
rated by Lenine, influenced the theoretical position 
of these uncompromising Marxians? Theory that 
does not work out in practice cannot be very sound 
theory. "Was this obvious truth recognized by these 
scientific Marxians? Let us investigate. 

Lenine wrote The Soviets at Work after six or eight 
months' practical experience as the leader of a State 
under the dictatorship of the proletariat. In order 
to retain power and prev^ent the starvation of 
the proletariat, he and Trotsky were compelled to 
compromise with the bourgeoisie. One year later 
they issued a call for a congress of the "New Revo- 
lutionary International." Does this call seek to 
give the proletariat of the rest of the world the bene- 
fit of the practical experience in Russia? Does it 
aim to prevent in other countries a repetition of 
methods that, in practice, proved wholly Utopian? 



1 The Soviets at Work. (My italics.) 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 219 

Is it its purpose to unite all Socialists rather than 
divide them? Is it conceived in a spirit that would 
indicate remorse for having uselessly murdered scores 
of good Comrades whose views experience had vindi- 
cated? Does it grasp the opportunity, in a measure, 
to atone for its crimes against these Comrades, by 
doing all in its power to prevent such fratricide in 
other countries? 
Let the document speak for itself: 

Dear Comrades: The undersigned parties and organizations 
consider it an urgent necessity that the first congress of the 
new revolutionary International be called. . . . The gigantic speed 
of the progress of the world revolution, that continually gives 
rise to ever-new problems, the danger of the choking of this 
revolution by that combination of the capitalist states, which, 
in opposition to the re\'olution, is rallying under the hypocritical 
flag of the League of Nations; the attem.pt of the social traitorous 
parties to combine, so that after having declared "amnesty" to each 
other once more help their governments and their hourgeoisie to 
betray the working class; finally the hard-earned wealth of revolu- 
tionary experience and the internationalization of the whole 
revolutionary movement — all these circumstances compel us to 
take the initiative to make the discussion of the question of 
calling an International Congress of the revolutionary proletarian 
parties part of our business. 

As a basis for the new International, we deem necessary the 
recognition of the following clauses, which we shall consider our 
platform, and which have been worked out on the basis of the 
program of the Spartacus Group in Germany and the Communist 
Party [Bolshevik] in Russia: 

1. The present is the period of dissolution and the collapse 
of the entire capitalist world system, w^iich will mean the entire 
collapse of European culture, if capitalism with its unsolvable 
contradictions is not destroyed. 



220 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

2. The problem of the proletariat consists in immediately 
seizing the power of the State. This seizure of the power of the 
State means the destruction of the State apjyaratus of the bour- 
geoisie and the organization of a new proletarian apparatus of 
power. 

3. This new machine of State must embody the dictatorship of 
the working class, and in certain places also the small peasants 
and farm hands, i.e., it must be the tool of the systematic 
overthrow of the exploiting classes and the means of their expro- 
priation. 

Type op the New State 

Not the false bourgeois democracy — this hypocritical form of 
the rule of the finance oligarchy, with its purely formal equality, 
but the proletarian democracy and the possibility of the realiza- 
tion oi freedom for the working masses; not parhamentarism, but 
self-government of these masses through their elected organiza- 
tions; not capitalist bureaucracy, but organs of administration 
which have been created by the masses themselves, with the true 
participation of these masses in the government of the countries 
and in the activity of the Socialist structure — this should be the 
type of the proletarian state. Tlie power of the workers' councils 
and similar organizations is its concrete form. 

4. The dictatorship of the proletariat must be the lever of the 
immediate expropriation of capital and the abohtion of private 
ownership of the means of production, with its transformation 
into ownership by the people. 

The main problems that confront us to-day are: (a) The so- 
cialization of the large industries and their central organization, 
the banks; (b) the confiscation of the lands of the great land- 
holders and the socialization of capitalist agricultural pro- 
duction. 

(c) The monopolization of trade. 

(d) The socialization of the great buildings and houses in the 
cities and on estates. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 221 

(f ) The introduction of the adminislralion hy (lie workers and 
the centralization of the economic functions in the hands of the 
orga7is of proletarian dictatorship. 

The term "socialization," as herein used, means the abohtion 
of private property and its transfer to the ownership of the pro- 
letarian state and the SociaUst administration of tJie working 
class. 

5. For the purpose of safeguarding the Socialist revolution for 
defense against enemies within and without, of assistance for 
other national groups of the fighting proletariat, etc., the complete 
disarmament of the bourgeoisie and their agents and the general 
arming of the proletariat is necessary. 

G. The fundamental means of the struggle are mass action of 
the proletariat, even to armed open warfare with the State power of 
capital. 

Relation to the "Socialist Parties" 

7. The old International parted into three main groups: 
First, those frankly social patriots who, during the entire im- 
perialist war from 1914 to 1918 supported their bourgeoisie and 
transformed the working class into hangmen of the international 
revolution. 

8. Then there is the "center," at present theoretically led by 
Kautsky and representing an organization of such elements, con- 
stantly wavering, not capable of following a definite plan of 
action and at times positively traitorous. 

Finally the Left revolutionary wing. 

9. As regards the social patriots, who everjrwhere in the 
critical moment oppose the proletarian revolution with force of 
arms, only unsparing combat is possible. As regards the "cen- 
ter," our tactics must be to separate the revolutionary elements 
and the pitiless criticism and unmasking of the leaders. . . . 

10. On the other hand, a block with those elements of the 
revolutionary working class is necessary, which, although they 
formerly did not belong to the Socialist parties now on the whole 
hold the views of and indorse the proletarian dictatorship in the form 



222 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

of the Soviet power. These are, in the first place, the Syndicalist 
element of tJie labor movement.^ [My italics.] 

So this is the platform of the new revolutionary 
International, as drawn up by those who had ob- 
tained most of the hard-earned wealth of revolu- 
tionary experience! What matters it that in prac- 
tice they were compelled to repudiate its principles? 
Of what significance is the fact that the effort to 
enforce them in Russia paralyzed industry and 
brought nothing but starvation to the emancipated 
proletariat? Instead of encouraging the union of 
all Socialist forces they tell us that "only unsparing 
combat is possible." Well do we know what that 
means. The old, tried and battle-scarred veterans 
of perhaps a quarter of a century of unremitting toil 
in behalf of the masses are to be the first bloody 
victims of the "social revolution." Civil war must 
rage, the blood of the masses must pour like water, 
chaos must reign, the bourgeoisie must be crushed, 
and amid such a glorious environment the dictator- 
ship of the proletariat proclaimed. All these are 
prerequisite preliminaries to the Social Revolution. 
Lacking these, progress is impossible. 

Assuming that the Socialists of other countries 
act upon the advice of Lenine and Trotsky and, 
through blood, succeed in wading their way to the 
dictatorship of the proletariat, how are they to keep 
the masses from starving? Will they be obliged to 
do what Lenine and Trotsky were compelled to do; 
that is, compromise with the bourgeoisie? Will 
» New York Call, March 20, 1919. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 223 

this prove any more difficult in other countries than 
it did in Russia? Let us for a moment follow the 
unsolvable contradictions of these uncompromising, 
revolutionary scientific Marxian Socialists. 

First, they insisted that the bourgeoisie must bo 
crushed and the dictatorship of the proletariat pro- 
claimed, be the price what it may. Next, to retain 
power and prevent the starvation of the proletariat, 
they compromised with their bourgeoisie. Then, 
for the other countries they advise the repetition of 
their original tactics and this is followed a few 
months later with an appeal to the bourgeoisie of 
other countries to come to their rescue! This is 
evidenced by the following news item: 

CONFERENCE TO GET TECHNICAL AID FOR RUSSIA 

—MARTENS CALLS GATHERING HERE TO SECURE 

SPECIALISTS WILLING TO HELP SOVIETS » 

Discussion of the prol^lem of securing technical men to aid in 
the rcconstmction of Soviet Russia will be the purpose of a con- 
ference to be called here for July 4-6 by L. C. A. K. Martens, 
Soviet Russian representative in this country. 

The purpose of the conference wiU be to ascertain the number 
of technical men desiring to offer their abilities to Russia. 

Difficult is the inheritance which fell to the share of the Soviet 
Government. Russia was devastated by the war . . . the rail- 
roads were in a state of paralysis, factories and shops remained 
without fuel and raw materials. Such was the condition of 
Russia when the Russian proletariat took the power into their 
hands. At the first step they met with the sabotage of the bourgeoisie 
and the intelligentsia, ivhich complicated the situation still more. 
One of the principal tasks of the Socialist revolution in Russia 

1 New York Call, May 14, 1919. (My italics.) 
15 



224 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

is the creation of a new social system of a higher order than the 
capitalist system. ... 

The possibility of Socialism in Russia is determined by the 
measure of success with luhich the Soviet poiver is able to utilize the 
whole technical and organizing experience of capitalism for its own 
purposes. 

It is, therefore, a very important task of the Soviet power to 
attract to the work in Russia experienced men in the greatest 
possible number, specialists in all fields of technology and science. 

Here we have the naive but somewhat belated 
recognition of Marx's fundamental proposition, 
that new or higher conditions of production never step 
on to the scene before the material conditions of existence 
of the same have come to light out of the womb of the 
old society. 

Plachanov and the Mcnsheviki tried to remind 
Lenine and Trotsky of this truth, but they would 
not hear of it. They proceeded with their dogmatic 
task of first creating the higher conditions of produc- 
tion and expected these to fill the stomachs of the 
masses. Having learned a historic lesson at the 
expense of thousands of victims composed of mem- 
bers of the proletariat, whose dictatorship they 
established, Lenine and Trotsky must now proceed 
to create the material conditions of existence for 
their new social system. These scientists like a 
crab must crawl backwards. 

But what would have been the plight of Messrs. 
Lenine and Trotsky if the proletariat of America 
had acted on their advice and also established the 
dictatorship of the proletariat? If the bourgeoisie 
resents the dictatorship of the proletariat, and this 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 225 

resentment manifests itself in sabotage, what is the 
likeUhood of the bourgeoisie of another country 
coming to the support of a proletarian dictatorship? 
And if all the countries had estabhshed the dictator- 
ship of the proletariat at the one time — well, the 
competition for the services of the '^useless" bour- 
geoisie would have been so keen that the dictatorship 
of the proletariat would soon have been converted 
into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie! 



CHAPTER XVII 

THE GERMAN REVOLUTION 

The historic explanation for the German revolu- 
tion is, of course, identical with that of the Russian 
Revolution. 

The autocratic German Government well knew 
that without the support of a majority of the Ger- 
man people it could not possibly wage a successful 
war. The masses, including the Socialists, were 
hoodwinked into the behef that national existence 
was threatened by Russia. This is biologically a 
conclusive argument which is bound to rally and 
cement all classes. 

The Socialists justified their support of the war 
on two grounds: (1) They were siding with German 
progress as against Russian reaction; (2) If they 
failed to support the war, the German masses would 
turn against them. The latter statement constitutes 
a repudiation of the Marxian theory that the class 
struggle is the propelhng force of social progress and 
an empiric acceptance of the law that social interests 
sway the action of the masses, overriding all class 
conflict. 

Only an insignificant minority upheld the class 
struggle theory, the antisocial genesis of which 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 227 

made participation in a matter of social concern an 
impossibility. 

For four years the German people starved, suffered, 
bled and died in the interest of national existence. 
They gave money, treasure, life to their Govern- 
ment in the hope that through such unstinted sup- 
port the Govermnent would be put in a position to 
redeem its promise to protect national security. 

The war was lost. The Government had failed 
the people. It had failed to protect the social 
interests of the majority. The social interests of the 
majority demanded that the Government which 
had proved itself inefficient be removed. It was 
removed. And what is the character of the Govern- 
ment that was put in its place? A Government 
representative of the social interests of the majority 
as democratically expressed by the electorate of the 
German nation. 

Thus did autocracy in Germany come to an end. 
Not the class struggle, but the social interests of the 
majority brought about its doom. Inasmuch as 
this was a social revolution, the fact that it was 
accompHshed without bloodshed should occasion no 
surprise. 

The small group of Marxians, who by consistent 
adherence to the class-struggle theory had held 
aloof from the activities that created the historic 
conditions which alone made possible the social 
revolution, at once undertook to obstruct and, if 
possible, defeat the inexorable operations of the laws 
of Social Evolution. 



228 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

They would have nothing to do with a social revo- 
lution. As uncompromising, revolutionary Mai'x- 
ians, they immediately demanded an antisocial 
revolution. "The class struggle, the dictatorship 
of the proletariat, that is the true law of social 
progress! The only social revolution is the anti- 
social revolution. Such a revolution we are deter- 
mined to bring about at once, be the cost what it 
may." 

In an attempt to enforce such scientific principles 
on history, hundreds of loyal and devoted Comrades 
slayed each other with the ferocity of wild beasts. 

Such noble souls as Rosa Luxemburg and Karl 
Liebknecht fearlessly sacrificed their lives in behalf 
of a principle that is historically and scientifically 
false. Rosa Luxemburg little realized the misery 
that her theories, if enforced, would bring to the 
very class in whose interest she gladly gave her life. 
Her views had undergone no change whatsoever. 
In 1899 she wrote: 

As, however, the cataclysm of the bourgeois society is the 
cornerstone of scientific Socialism so the removal of this corner- 
stone would logically lead to the breakdown of the entire Socialist 
conception. . . . Without the collapse of capitahsm the expropria- 
tion of the capitaUst class is impossible.^ [My itaUcs.] 

Four years of agonizing war with its unprecedented 
fury and cruelty did not bring enough misery to the 
German masses; we must proceed at once to expro- 
priate the capitalist class and thus make certain of 

' Sozial Reform oder Revolution, p. 56. Quoted by V. Simkhovitch. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 229 

the collapse of capitalism. But the masses are also 
a part of bourgeois society and industrial collapse 
must lead to starvation for the masses. Let the 
Spartacan group halt long enough in their Utopian 
star-gazing to cast their eyes on the bitter realities in 
Russia. WTiat failed of accomplishment in Germany 
was supremely successful in Russia. The collapse of 
capitalism, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and 
— and — oh, glorious, thrilling, ecstasy — the dictator- 
ship of the proletariat! Are the Russian masses 
happy? Do they bless the Marxian class-struggle 
theory of history — that is, if they had ever heard of 
it — how do they like getting the "full product of 
their toil" now that they have been completely 
emancipated from wage slavery? 

If the Spartacan group had been successful in 
Germany we would by this time have had another 
Soviet representative in New York competing with 
the Russian Soviet for the services of the despis- 
ed bourgeoisie! Non-compromising, revolutionary, 
Marxian, scientific Socialism in theory and in 
practice ! 

And yet these groups have the effrontery to find 
fault with the old Socialist parties! 



CHAPTER XVIII 



CONCLUSION 



It is quite evident that a search for the underlying 
causes that have led to the collapse of the Interna- 
tional Socialist movement is not the simple task 
many Comrades have imagined. It has been the 
fashion to dismiss this rather unpleasant problem 
with the stereotyped statement that the incessant 
strife within the international movement was due 
to differences over policy and tactics. 

Our study had brought out the fact that the 
problem is not as simple as all that. Comrades do 
not massacre each other in cold blood because they 
disagree as to policy and tactics. We have discovered 
that the root of the trouble hes far deeper. It is now 
clear that the irrepressible conflict must be traced 
back to differences over principles rather than over 
policy and tactics. 

Our re-examination of Marxian principles revealed 
the fact that they are neither scientific nor Sociahstic. 
Marxian principles are not based upon the laws of 
Social Evolution and therefore are not scientific. 
Marx's economic interpretation of history with its 
class-struggle theory is fundamentally an antisocial 



^ 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 231 

conception of history. Wo have seen where Marx 
made his mistake. He dealt with effects, not causes, 
but mistook them for causes. 

We now know that the propelHng motive power 
behind all social progress is the quest for a solution 
to the problem of existence and that throughout 
history all social change has been registered in re- 
sponse to the social interests of the majority. The 
majority is usually formed through a combination 
of the powerful and the useful as against the rem- 
nants of the past and useless of the present. This 
is the social interpretation of history. Social Evolu- J 
tion compels economic evolution. Social Evolution 
gave rise to the several epochs through which man 
has evolved. Each epoch presented the phenomenon 
of a class struggle at the point of production peculiar 
to that epoch, but which gradually disappeared as 
Social Evolution evolved the succeeding epoch. 

Mai-x believed that Social Evolution operates 
through the class struggle. 

The International Socialist movement is based on 
his theory of the industrial conflict. It concerns it- 
self with the welfare of the producer and demands 
the abolition of the capitahst mode of production. 

The Socialists entered practical politics not be- 
cause it was indicated by Marxian theoretical prin- 
ciples, but in spite of its clear repudiation of those 
principles. 

The "true Marxists" were bitterly opposed to this 
step. But the party's final decision was tantamount 
to the bartering away of their Marxian principles in 



232 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

return for the political support of the masses. This 
momentous decision once made could be rescinded 
only under pain of losing the support of the masses. 

From that moment on, the IMarxists paid homage 
to two masters — Marx and the masses. The masses 
are not interested in theories. To them it is the 
everyday practical problems of life that count. It 
was demanded that the Marxists devote their prac- 
tical activities to championing the social interests, 
the consumer interests of the masses. So we have 
the anomalous spectacle of the Marxists holding 
fast to Marxian principles in theory but applying 
the principles of the masses in practice. The two 
are in complete contradiction of each other. 

Marxian principles concern themselves with pro- 
ductive capital and with the interests of the pro- 
ducer, whereas the masses are swayed by their social 
welfare, their welfare as consumers. The Interna- 
tional Socialist movement grew in proportion as it 
repudiated Marxian theory and followed the dictates 
of the masses. 

But along with the growth of the movement grew 
the strife within the movement. The consistent 
Marxists refused to barter away their principles for 
votes. The growi:h of the movement could not 
reconcile them to the repudiation of Marxian prin- 
ciples. They wanted the growth to represent new 
converts to the theory of the class struggle and the 
dictatorship of the proletariat. They insisted that the 
owners of the means of production and the masses 
could not possibly have any interests in common. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 233 

The practical programs of the SociaHst parties 
with their immediate demand planks do not threaten 
exploitation at the point of production, but concern 
themselves with the social, the consumer welfare of 
the masses; therefore, consistent Marxians cannot 
endorse them, for they bear no relation to Marxian 
principles. 

Our study, however, has disclosed the fact that 
Marxian principles are not scientific, for they are 
not based upon the laws of Social Evolution. His 
class-struggle theory is an antisocial theory and the 
International Socialist movement, which accepts 
Marxian principles as its theoretical foundation, is 
not a sociahst but an anti-socialist movement. 

But the practical program which the masses forced 
the Marxists to adopt is consistent with the laws of 
Social Evolution inasmuch as it concerns itself with 
social welfare, the welfare of consumers. This prac- 
tical program converted the International SociaHst 
movement into a consumer movement and, as a con- 
sequence, into a socialist movement. And it is 
identically against this practical socialist program 
that the Bolsheviki, Spartacides and Left Wing 
factions wage their bitter and relentless struggle. 

Such is the hopeless chaos in which the Interna- 
tional Socialist movement is plunged. And what is 
the cause of this tragic situation? The cause must 
be sought in the Marxists' repudiation of all that is 
great in Marx. Marx lived, toiled and suffered in 
the hope that he would prove by the force of example 
that there is only one scientific way of advancing 



234 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

Socialism and that is by observing the daily opera- 
tions of Social Evolution and co-operating with these 
tendencies. Marx never tired of reiterating this 
fundamental law. 

In Brussels, where I was exiled by Guizot, I organized, to- 
gether with Engcls, W. Wolf and others, a German "Arbeiter- 
bildingsvcrcin" which still exists. We published at the same 
time a series of printed and lithographed pamplilets in which 
we criticized mercilessly that mixture of French-English Socialism 
or Communism with German philosophy which then formed the 
doctrine of the "Bund." Instead of that we postulated scientific in- 
sight in the economic structure of civil society as the only defensible 
theoretical basis of Socialism. We also explained in jjopular form 
that it is not a question of putting through some Utopian system, 
but of taking a conscious part in the process of social transformation 
which is going on before our very eyes. ... In the manifesto written 
for workingmen / discarded all systems and put in their stead a 
aitical insight into the conditions, progress and general results of 
the actual social movement.^ 

Such was Marx's conception of the scientific 
method. But what is the method of his so-called 
disciples, the present-day Marxists? Do they take a 
conscious part in the process of social transformation 
which is going on before their very eyes? Not at all. 
They shrink from taking a conscious part in the daily 
social processes. Instead they devote all their ener- 
gies to an activity which Marx characterized as 
Utopian, that is, trying to put through a new social 
system. That new system they used to call the Co- 
operative Commonwealth, but this name has now 

1 Karl Marx, by Herr Vogt. London, 1860. Pp. 35-42. _Quoted 
by Simkhovitch. (My italics.) 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 235 

gone out of style and the latest thing in systems is 
the Soviet Repubhe. No, a critical insight into the 
conditions, progress and general results of the actual 
social movement (Marx), may have been the scientific 
"style" in Marx's time, but styles will change and 
so the modern "scientific" style is to ignore the 
actual social movement and instead call for a dicta- 
torship of the proletariat. 

The would-be disciples of Marx are but a libel on 
Marx. 

The Bolsheviki, the Spartacides and Left Wingers 
reverse Marx's procedure. They discard Marx's 
scientific method of basing propaganda on a critical 
insight into the actual social movement and instead 
base it on Marx's theoretical system. Their achieve- 
ments in Russia and their efforts in Germany bear 
eloquent and bloody testimony to the scientific (?) 
character of their propaganda. These are but the 
fruition of the fundamental contradiction which 
forms the quicksand foundation for the International 
Socialist movement. The movement has lived a lie. 
The practical program fostered the belief that the 
movement aimed to promote social progress through 
social and democratic methods, but when the test 
came it proved itself in reality to be an antisocial, 
anti-democratic movement aiming at a dictatorship 
of a class. Socialism can only be attained, say they, 
through civil war, with all the agony, fratricide and 
misery that the word implies. 

This much may be said for the Bolsheviki: they 
are consistent and therefore set themselves against 



236 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY' 

the double dealing which heretofore has been the 
pohcy of the International SociaHst movement. In 
their call for the Third International, they expressly 
exclude all parties that owe their influence and 
growth to the empirically arrived at SociaHst prac- 
tical program. Instead they offer representation to 
all antisocial elements that always opposed the 
Socialist practical program. The Bolsheviki say 
that a block with those elements of the revolutionary 
working class is necessary which, although they 
formerly did not belong to the Socialist parties, now on 
the whole hold views of and endorse the proletarian 
dictatorship in the form of the Soviet power. 

The Bolsheviki wish to remain true to the theo- 
retical Marxian principles and apply them in prac- 
tice. These principles, however, are Utopian. They 
seek to bring about a new social system by force 
without consideration to the laws of Social Evolu- 
tion. The Bolsheviki must fail unless they reverse 
themselves and adopt a social democratic program, 
and repudiate their antisocial class-struggle prin- 
ciples. 

What is to be the experience in other countries? 
Will the Marxists of each country have to learn of 
the Utopian character of their principles only at the 
expense of bloodshed?^ Must light come to them 
only through the darkness and misery which the 
practical apphcation of their principles bring to the 
masses? Leaders and teachers of the International 
Socialist movement, what is your answer? Every 
drop of blood uselessly spilt will be an indehble stain 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 237 

on your conscience. Upon your heads must rest the 
guilt for the bestial slaughter which the practical 
application of your principles always engenders. 
Unlike yourselves, your disciples are in the main 
consistent. They wish to conform practice to 
theory. And so they get out of your control. They 
go to the Left while you, lacking the courage of your 
convictions, veer to the Right. You are consistent 
in your inconsistency. With you, theory is one 
thing, practice quite another. 

But this miserable situation has now come to a 
head. It can be dodged no longer. You must either 
repudiate your teachings or repudiate your practice. 
Your straddling attitude has earned for you the 
well-merited contempt and hatred of your disciples. 

The Marxists claim to be the only true Socialist 
group in society. All experience, however, points 
to the very opposite — that they are an antisocial 
group in society. They are opposed to the use of 
the State as a social instrument. They wish to ''cap- 
ture" the State so that they might destroy it. They 
despise the ''bourgeois" State. But the bourgeois 
does not despise it. On the contrary, he finds it a 
very handy instrument. He is only too happy to 
keep it on his side. It dehghts him to know that the 
Marxians do not threaten to take the control of the 
State from him and then use it against him. The 
capitalist fears the power of the State. That is 
why he feels safe only when it is under his control. 
Should the Marxists attempt to put their antisocial 
principles into practice, should they decide to cap- 



238 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

ture the State through other than poHtical methods, 
it will certainly be a great comfort to the capitalist 
class to know that the power of the poHce, the militia 
and the courts are all on its side. 

But the Marasts disdain to learn a lesson from 
the capitahst class. They refuse to make use of the 
State as the tool by means of which to undermine 
profit. That would be a social process and therefore 
does not square with their antisocial principles. 
Besides, it would mean nothing but slow, plodding 
work, without any of the revolutionary thrills evoked 
by calls for the dictatorship of the proletariat, revolu- 
tionary mass actioji, militant proletariat, the emanci- 
pation of the masses from the thraldom of wage slavery, 
the class struggle against their exploiters, and all the 
other brave words that are guaranteed to bring down 
the house. How could it be possible to attain 
progress without such indispensable tools? They 
are fundamental to social progress. From the atti- 
tude of the Marxists, one is forced to the conclusion 
that to them form is more vital than substance. 
Social progress is to them an intoxicating game with 
the lives and well-being of the masses a minor 
consideration. 

In every country there are to be found political or 
social organizations which, while making no pre- 
tense that social democracy is their aim, yet under- 
take activities in harmony with the spirit and pur- 
pose of socialist organizations. 

They devote themselves usually to a number of 
measures that aim to serve the social and consumer 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 239 

interests of the people as a whole. They demand 
that the people through then* Government take 
over some economic function, and this, of course, 
makes for the elimination of the capitalist principle 
— profit — and replaces it with the socialist principle — 
service. 

What attitude do Marxians take towards these 
organizations? It is either one of indifference or 
actual hostility. Let us cite a few examples furnished 
by different countries. 

We have already referred to the Reconstruction 
program of the British Labor Party. This program, 
although the product of an economic organization 
of the workers, is fundamentally a socialist program. 
The British Labor Party is not a Marxian party 
and therein lies the hope of the British masses. The 
program spurns all class appeal, but lays great stress 
on the social and consumer welfare of the people. 
This program does not aim to destroy the State, but 
to destroy the profit system through the State. 

If the British Socialist Party, a Simon-pure 
Marxian organization, had gotten control of the 
British Labor Party, what would have been the 
result? The antisocial class struggle would have be- 
come the central theme of the reconstruction pro- 
gram. Economic interests rather than social in- 
terests would have been stressed. And the British 
Labor Party would have taken its place beside the 
British Socialist Party, unnoticed and unheard. 
But fortunately for the British masses it is the non- 
Marxian Fabian Society that has the ear of the 
16 



240 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

British Labor Party and has played an important 
part in the framing of the Reconstruction program. 
This historic document is in harmony with the opera- 
tions of the laws of Social Evolution and is therefore 
scientific. 

If the future pohcy of the British Labor Party 
remains free from the influence of the Marxian, revo- 
lutionary scientific SociaUsts, its social purpose will 
crystallize in undreamed of blessings for the masses. 
The British Labor Party will make the distribution 
of consumable wealth its first concern. It will not 
cater to the workers as workers, but to the life needs 
of the workers. It will demand that the British 
people solve their common problem of existence 
through the agency of their Government. The 
people through their Government will abohsh the 
Iprofit principle in those departments where ineffi- 
ciency is most glaring, i.e., in distribution of con- 
sumable wealth. This is the department that i8 
closest to the life of the people, and the British Labor 
Party will see to it that it is placed in the hands of the 
people. 

With the profit principle eliminated from 
transportation and distribution will come the test 
of the profit principle in production. When the 
private owners of the means of production will no 
longer be in a position to claim oyer-production then 
will the people be in a position to claim under-pro- 
duction as the cause of want in the means of fife. 
This stage will mark the beginning of the end. The 
British people will thereupon abolish the proven 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 241 

inefficient profit principle in production and replace 
it with, the social principle — serving the life needs of 
the nation. Thus will the capitalist system with its 
classes and class struggles disappear from British 
soil. 

There is only one factor that can prevent England 
from being one of the first genuine Socialist coun- 
tries, and that is the Marxian revolutionary scien- 
tific Socialist. This scientific group, in spite of the 
teachings of Social Evolution, still insists that social 
progress must be the result of a class struggle waged 
by producers instead of a social struggle against a 
class waged by consumers. The economic antisocial 
class war is bound to have a reactionary influence. 
Nothing could suit the capitalist class better than an 
economic conflict with the State in the hands of the 
capitalists. It means a betrayal of the hopes and 
aspirations of the workers. It means the horrors of 
Bolshevism duplicated in England. It means brutal 
civil warfare with the workers drowning in each 
other's blood. Such would be the inevitable result 
were the Marxists to obtain leadership over the 
British masses. As between the Marxists and the 
British Labor Party, could there be a doubt as to 
which would enlist the support of Marx? 

The Marxists hurl the taunt of ''social patriots" 
at all elements that come to the support of their 
national existence. The Marxists are safe from a 
like accusation. Social patriotism means loyalty to 
society, whereas the Marxists are antisocial. The 
hope of the masses is bound up with the social 



242 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

patriots' loyalty to society. Social patriotism makes 
for a social system based upon social service. God 
speed to the social patriots. 

In Germany the Marxists have thus far failed to 
establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. De- 
mocracy, having dethroned the old form of autoc- 
racy, seems sufficiently virile to withstand an attack 
from the new. 

With the Spartacide menace apparently over, what 
is the outlook for democratic Socialism in Germany? 

Barring a coup d'etat from either the Junker or 
Spartacide camp, which would plunge Germany 
into the whirlpool of civil war, all signs point strongly 
to Germany as the first Social Democracy. More 
than that. Not only is Germany likely to be the 
first country to develop democratic SociaHsm, but 
it will profoundly stimulate the development of 
democratic Socialism in other countries. 

Wliat is the basis for this admittedly dogmatic 
assertion? 

For more than four years the German people 
gave up life and treasure in an effort to save their 
national existence. The men died on the battle- 
fields, the women and children starved at home. 
While it was the Kaiser who made the war, it was 
the people who suffered the horrors of the war. 
The Kaiser lost the war and was compelled to flee 
for his life. 

Democratic Germany signed the treaty of peace 
and has pledged to pay for the Kaiser's war. The 
indemnity Germany will have to pay is beyond 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 243 

calculation. Never in the world's history have 
indemnities been measured in such figures. 

Even before the war, with Germany at her best 
in virile man-power and accumulated wealth, the 
sum would have appeared staggering. But to-day, 
with the best and fittest in the land lying in pre- 
mature graves, with those remaining in an emaciated 
state, with national wealth depleted, how can Ger- 
many meet this stupendous bill? 

Germany will pay. She will meet her installments 
promptly. She will exert herself to the utmost in an 
effort to wipe out her debt in the shortest possible 
time. 

The eyes of the German people are firmly fixed 
on their pre-war standard of national existence. 
They will leave nothing undone in an effort to regain 
it. And they wish to regain it in the shortest pos- 
sible time. This means work. It means intensive 
work. It means efficient work. Germany will or- 
ganize and systematize. She will prevent waste. 
She will prevent useless duplication. She will reduce 
non-productive labor to a minimum. In a word, 
Germany will stimulate wealth production to an 
unprecedented degree. The new Germany will 
become the most efficient nation in the world. There 
is no escape. The interests of the majority as social 
beings demand it. And it will be done. 

The German nation will nurture its huinan re- 
sources as never before. Social and labor legislation 
will set a new standard. The wasteful and inefficient 
profit principle in the transportation and distribu- 



244 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

tion of consumable wealth will be abolished and 
become a social concern. Every department based 
upon the capitaUst principle acting as a fetter to 
production will be socialized. In order to be able 
to assume all these economic functions the German 
nation will resort to direct taxation on a scale be- 
yond anything ever known. 

And then what? Production is still in private 
hands. Yes, but it will be threatened. And the 
threat will come not from the native proletariat, but 
from the foreign bourgeoisie. The indemnity de- 
manded by the Allies is so huge that even after the 
ehmination of the inefficient profit principle in all 
other departments, wealth production will still be 
behind social need. For the German nation must 
now produce for the Alhes as well as for herself. 
C/ncZcr-protection will be a threat to the capitalist 
mode of production. The social interests of the ma- 
jority will demand greater efficiency in production. 
The Government will begin by making a study of 
production with a view to suggesting improvements. 
This will be followed by regulation of production. 
The Government will dictate what should be pro- 
duced and how to produce it. From this stage to 
complete social ownership is but a step. The last 
payments of the indemnity will in all probability be 
made by a Government representing a pure Social 
Democracy. The capitalists' governments of the 
AUies will have abolished capitalism in Germany. 
Democratic Socialism will become an established 
fact in Germany in spite of all opposition on 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 245 

the part of the Marxian revolutionary scientific 
Socialists. 

It will be the hated» social patriots who will do 
everything in their power to accelerate the social 
process in the interest of society. 

In the meantime, what will be the happenings in 
the Allied countries, particularly England and the 
United States? We have already spoken of England. 
The British Labor Party will write new pages into 
English history. And the English capitalist will help. 

The greatly increased efficiency which is bound to 
be the outstanding phenomenon of new Germany 
will compel the capitalists of England to seek the 
assistance of their Government in an effort to com- 
pete. The EngUsh Government will extenfcfits so- 
cial and labor legislation in order to promote the 
efficiency of the workers. Transportation and dis- 
tribution will be socialized because productive 
capital and social interests will require it. The profit 
principle in production will as usual be the last to 
be dethroned. England will, in all probabihty, be 
the second nation to develop into a full-fledged 
Social Democracy. 

What does the future hold in store for our own 
country? 

The entrance of the United States into the world 
war sounded the death knell of American capitahsm. 
Never in its history has the American Government 
concerned itself with economic and social functions 
as it does to-day. Social interests demand it, and 
the Government must respond to social interests. 



246 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

The war needs have stimulated the productive 
forces a thousandfold. The owners of the means of 
production were no longer creating commodities, 
but use values. The capitalists were no longer 
hampered in the development of their productive 
potentialities for lack a of market. The people, 
through their Government, guaranteed to take all 
that the capitalists could produce. And how produc- 
tion responded to the creation of use values! Pro- 
ductive capital was dehghted to drop the wasteful 
and inefficient middleman, broker, trader, merchant, 
and see him replaced by the Government. Trans- 
portation, communication and all functions bearing 
upon production and distribution were made efficient 
instruments of social service rather than creators of 
private profit. 

The war is over. The displaced capitalist ele- 
ments are raising heaven and earth in an effort to 
get back into the saddle. They wish to restore the 
inefficient profit principle which the social needs of 
the war had exposed and discarded. Will they suc- 
ceed? Yes, for this antisocial element is organized 
and united, whereas the social elements are disor- 
ganized and divided. True to their antisocial class- 
struggle theory, the Marxists are not lifting a finger 
in an effort to stay the hand of reaction. That society 
is in danger of again being exploited by the profit 
principle in the means of transportation, communi- 
cation and distribution is a matter of small concern 
to the Marxists. Their sole interest is the class 
struggle at the point of production. They are not 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 247 

interested in social exploitation; they wish to 
abolish exploitation of the producer through a dicta- 
torship of the proletariat. 

But what is the attitude of these producers of 
whose welfare the Marxists are so solicitous? With 
them exploitation is no theory, but one of the daily 
facts of life. How do they propose to abolish ex- 
ploitation? through the class war and the establish- 
ment of their own dictatorship? Not at all. They 
leave this method to the Marxists. In contrast to 
the ^Marxists' position, the producers demand that 
social exploitation be permanently abolished through 
social retention of the ownership and control of the 
means of transportation and communication. The 
railway unions demand the social ownership of the 
railroads, the Telegraphers' Union demands the 
social ownership of the wire systems, and the senti- 
ment of the American Federation of Labor is strongly 
in favor of both these demands. These are strictly 
sociahst demands, voiced by economic organizations 
that have failed to be influenced by Marxian 
dogma. 

The Farmers' National Council also comes out in 
favor of these demands. Nevertheless, the railroads 
and wire systems will in all probability go back into 
private hands, to the joy of the antisocial elements. 
But their joy will be short-lived. Before another 
five years are over the railroads, the wire systems 
and the coal mines will be socialized. And they will 
be socialized in response to the social demands of 
peace. 



248 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

The war has intensified production. Productive 
capital will not be satisfied to curtail production to 
the pre-war limits. It will make every effort to re- 
tain its wartime standard of efficiency. This natural 
ambition on the part of productive capital consti- 
tutes a menace to the private ownership of the 
means of transportation and communication as well 
as to the private ownership of the coal mines. 

Productive capital will seek to compete with the 
intensified efficiency of new Germany and will have 
to have efficiency in transportation, communication 
and distribution. This efficiency only socialization 
can offer; therefore, society in response to the social 
interests of the majority will again eliminate the 
profit principle in the means of transportation, com- 
munication and distribution. 

Social Evolution clearly indicates that the next 
five years will see society permanently emancipated 
from the exploitation to which the owners of the 
means of transportation, communication and dis- 
tribution now subject it. 

What role will the Marxists play in this historic 
process? Will their principles be the result of the 
application of Marx's scientific method of a critical 
insight into the actual social movement, or will they 
continue to resort to an empty-headed and conscience- 
less play with propaganda? The issue can no longer 
be dodged. The time for the test has arrived. The 
Socialist Party must prove its claim that it is a 
scientific and a socialist Party. 

The Left Wing movement is a challenge to the 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 249 

Socialist Party. It cannot be ignored. It demands 
that the Sociahst Party repudiate its practical pro- 
gram which is inconsistent with Marxian principles. 
The Left Wing insists that the Socialist Party serve 
but one master — the theoretical principles based on 
Marxian conclusions. Does the Sociahst Party dare 
repudiate the principles of the Left Wing Manifesto? 
Does the Socialist Party dare repudiate the principle 
of a proletarian dictatorship? What is the attitude of 
the Sociahst Party towards the Left Wing principle 
that Revolutionary Socialism does not intend to and 
cannot use the bourgeois state as a means of introducing 
Socialism; the bourgeois state must be destroyed by 
the mass action of the revolutionary proletariat. Does 
the Socialist Party indorse the civil war principle 
imphed in that statement? If the Socialist Party 
accepts and indorses these principles, it must act 
favorably on the demand of the Left Wing Manifesto, 
that all reform planks contained in the Socialist Party 
platform be abolished. It must also heed the demand 
''that the party discard its obsolete hterature and 
publish new literature in keeping with the policy 
and tactics above mentioned." 

The principles of the Left Wing Manifesto are 
based upon Marxian principles. To repudiate the 
Left Wing Manifesto is to repudiate Marxian prin- 
ciples. Most Socialist teachers and editors indorse 
the Left Wing Manifesto. 

A statement carrying thirteen signatures has 
recently been issued to the Socialist Party member- 
ship. The statement reads in part: 



250 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

The members of the American Socialist Party are face to face 
with a national and international crisis. We who sign this 
letter believe that the time has come for the party to restate its 
principles and reformulate its tactics. As a basis for discussion 
for the purpose of brmging about tliis result, we present the 
following suggestions: 

1. We believe in a uniform declaration of principles in all party 
platforms, both local and national and abolition of all social reform 
planks now contained in them. 

2. We believe that the party must teach, propagate and agi- 
tate exclusively for the overthrow of capitalism and the establish- 
vierd of an industrial dcmocraaj. 

3. A political party cannot organize the workers on the 
economic field, but we beheve that the party should assist this 
process of organization by a propaganda for revolutionary 
unionism as part of its general activities. 

4. We believe that SociaUst candidates elected to office shoidd 
adhere strictly to the above principles under penalty of recall. 

6. We believe that the party should publish new literature in 
keeping with the policies and tactics above mentioned. 

8. We believe that the Socialist Party should elect delegates 
to participate in any international congress to be attended by 
representatives of revolutionary Socialist parties of all coun- 
tries, but that the party shoidd refuse to participate in any con- 
ference called by "Moderate Socialists" and "Social Patriots." 
[My italics.] 

And now who are these master minds who beheve 
that they are Sociahsts and scientific SociaUsts at 
that? Why, most of the signatures are those of the 
leading teachers and editors in the Sociahst Party! 
They have helped to write much of the literature 
which they have now come to beheve ought to be 
discarded. Who could better judge of its merit? 
They have written Socialist Party platforms in which 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 251 

social reform planks received first consideration ; they 
received nominations and courted election with these 
reform planks as an issue, but now they tell us that 
all this was sheer camouflage. The business of the 
Socialist Party is to overthrow capitalism. The 
business of a Socialist assemblyman or alderman is 
to bring in a resolution for a dictatorship of the 
proletariat. 

Social reforms concern themselves with the welfare 
of the consumer, hence can have nothing in common 
with scientific Socialism and no Socialist who wishes 
to be considered scientific can consistently support 
social reforms! These scientists will have nothing 
to do with ''moderate Socialists" or social patriots. 
As "scientific" Socialists the very word social is 
jarring to their revolutionary ears. But they are 
willing to join the Bolsheviki and the Spartacides in 
a civil war and the dictatorship of the proletariat. 
And yet many of them claim to be pacifists ! 

Moreover, as students and teachers, they know 
that to be a scientific Socialist consists in worshipping 
conclusions formulated some three-quarters of a 
century ago. They need not bother studying the 
operations of Social Evolution. All they need to do 
is to memorize formulas and they are sure to be 
''scientific Sociahsts." That, to be sure, was Marx's 
conception of Scientific Socialism! 

The class-struggle theory has enslaved some of 
the greatest and noblest of spirits. Even so gentle 
and sublime a soul as 'Gene Debs is claimed as a 
victim. 



252 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

Since his imprisonment, extracts of his speeches 
and writings have been quoted daily. We give some 
of them: 

It is not to reform the evils of the day, but to abolish the social 
system that produces them that the Socialist Party is organized. 
It is the party not of reforms, but of revolution. . . . Steadily the 
number of class conscious toilers is increasing and higher and 
higher rises the tide that is to sweep away the barriers to progress 
and civihzation. Let others talk about the tariff and finance — 
the enhghtened workers demand the ownership of the tools of 
industry and they are building up the Socialist Party as a means 
of getting them. 

The working class alone made the tools, the working class alone 
can use tlwrn., ami the working class must therefore own them. 

This is the revolutionary demand of the Socialist movement.^ 

The itahcs are not mine, but appeared in the Call. 
Whether the editor or Debs is responsible for them 
is uncertain. 

Several days later we read this statement: 

The primal need of the working class is education. By educa- 
tion I mean revolutionary education, the kind that enables men 
to see that the twenty-odd millions of wage-earners in the 
United States are wage slaves; that the economic interests of 
these many millions of human beings who do all the useful work 
and produce all the wealth are absolutely identical; that they must 
unite; that they must act together, that they must assert their 
collective power.* . . . [My itaUcs.] 

In another quotation from Debs we find the 
following : 

You [meaning, of course, the working class] have made all the 
marvelous machines. . . . But these large grown tools made by 

1 New York Call, May 8, 1919. 

2 New York Call, May 12, 1919. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 253 

labor and used by labor are not owned by labor. . . . Has it ever 
occurred to you workingmen that if you could make these tools 
and use them, you also can own them and produce wealth in 
plenty for yourselves? 

Debs offers these statements in the name of scien- 
tific Socialism and tlie Socialist Party's official organ 
reprints them with approval. They form the basis 
for the class-struggle theory. The working class alone 
made the tools, the working class alone can use them and 
the working class must therefore own them. This is 
the revolutionary demand of the Socialist movement. 
Debs makes clear that by working class he means 
the twenty-odd millions of wage workers . . . who do 
all the useful work and -produce all the wealth. 

Socialism, then, is a class movement in the interest 
of a class. The enlightened workers demand the owner- 
ship of the tools of industry and they are building up 
the Socialist Party as a means of getting them. Thus 
does Debs join Lenine and Trotsky in their concep- 
tion of Socialism and in their appeal to the working 
class. Yet Marx assured us that the proletarian 
movement is a movement of the immense majority 
in the interest of the immense majority! If the 
workers of this country were to accept Debs' 
teachings, what would be the result? The horrors of 
Russia would be duplicated in this country. Civil 
war would rage. The twenty-odd millions of wage- 
earners would pit themselves against the eighty-odd 
millions who constitute the major portion of the 
population of this country. Can you picture, gentle 
'Gene, the scenes that would ensue? Cast your eyes 



254 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

upon Russia. See how Comrade cuts down Comrade. 
Observe those gushing rivers of red. Whence comes 
that blood? It is the hfe fluid of your Comrades and 
my Comrades, dear 'Gene. It is the blood of the 
masses in whose interest you have consecrated your 
life. I know your spiritual soul too well not to know 
that you would consider it a God-ordained privilege 
to lay down your life if by that act you could prevent 
the useless shedding of one drop of blood. And it is 
not alone proletarian blood you are opposed to 
spilling. You would far rather sustain a personal 
injury than knowingly crush out the life of the 
meanest earthworm. 

Could there remain a hght in your soul and a smile 
on your lips, dear 'Gene, were you convinced that 
agony and blood viust be the prelude to Socialism? 
What would be your feehngs, if the wage workers, 
accepting your teachings, should through a successful 
class war, wade their way to the ownership of the 
tools of industry? They would call that So- 
cialism. And they could point to your teachings in 
proof of their claim. Tell us, 'Gene Debs, do you 
really want the wage workers to believe that So- 
cialism means class ownership? 

Another of your statements was reprinted, in 
which you say: 

Ownership of the means of Hfe of one class by another class, 
such as we have in the United States and in every other capitaUst 
nation on earth means class rule and class war, class supremacy and 
class subjection.^ 

1 New York Call, June 18, 1919. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 255 

Here you refer, of course, to capitalist class owner- 
ship. But does that principle apply only to the 
capitalist class? Would you take exception to the 
statement : Ownership of the means of life of one class 
by another class means class rule and class war, class 
supremacy and class subjection? 

To know you for but a single hour is to know that 
every fiber of your being rebels against the principle 
of class rule, no matter what the class. You are not 
a classist, you are a Socialist. If any proof were 
necessary it is to be had in the last paragraph of your 
statement from which the above was quoted. There 
you say: 

We, the people, mvst own, control, regulate and manage induslry, 
the means of our common life, so that we shall all have a chance 
to work, enjoy the fruit of our labor, have leisure time for recre- 
ation and the pursuit of happiness, and live the lives of civiUzed 
human beings. 

We, as Socialists, know the thrill that came to 
you as you penned or spoke those words. You wish 
to see that blessed condition brought about as 
speetUly and as peaceably as possible, do you not, 
gentle 'Gene? Which is hkely to prove more success- 
ful in both these aims, your class-struggle appeal, an 
appeal to the twenty-odd million wage workers to de- 
77iand the ownership of the tools of industry or your 
social appeal: We, the people, must own, control, 
regulate and manage industry, the means of our 
common life? 

"\Miy these conflicting appeals? Think what the 



25G THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

class-struggle appeal may mean for the wage workers. 
You speak to twenty millions of them, but you know 
that if you could succeed in converting five million 
you will have done well. These five million revolu- 
tionists would attempt to obtain for themselves the 
ownership of the means of life indispensable to 
society as a whole. 

You, no doubt, had no other than legal methods in 
mind as the means of obtaining control of industry. 
But the Bolsheviki, the Spartacides and Left Wingers 
of this country, who claim you as one of them, have 
no use for parliamentarism; they do not believe it is 
possible to use the State; they therefore wish to 
destroy the State. They will imbue the five million 
revolutionary proletariat with this spirit. Is it neces- 
sary to dilate further upon the consequences? As- 
suming that the revolutionary proletariat should suc- 
ceed in obtaining the upper hand, would you go to 
them and say, "When I said, the twenty-odd millions 
of wage workers demand the ownership of the tools of 
industry, I did not mean that the twenty-odd millions 
of wage workers demand the ownership of the tools of 
industry. I meant something entirely different. 
What I meant was. We, the people, must own, control, 
regulate and manage industry, the means of our com- 
mon life.'^ 

How would this statement of yours be received? 
Wouldn't the now victorious revolutionary prole- 
tariat be justified in asking some pertinentquestions? 
They would ask, DidnH you tell v^ that ours was a 
class struggle? DidnH you appeal to our class con- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 257 

sciousncss? Didn^t you say that inasmuch as we wage 
workers do all the useful work and produce all the wealth 
we ought to own the means of production and produce 
wealth in plenty for ourselves? DidnH you say this 
was the revolutionary demand of the Socialist Party? 
Why, then, do you now say, The people must own, con- 
trol and tnanage industry? Do you propose to defeat 
the aim of the revolution? Are you a counter revo- 
lutionist? 

And would not the workers be justified in this line 
of questioning? How is it possible to justify the 
class-struggle appeal, when the ultimate aim of 
Socialism is that the people must own, control, regulate 
and manage industry, the means of our common life? 

Be the motive what it may, the advocate of the 
class struggle is both an enemy of society and an 
enemy of the proletariat. He sets society and the 
proletariat to warring at one another. The prole- 
tariat is asked to obtain the mastery over society. 
This means civil war, and the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat. When all this is accomplished, what must 
follow? Why, then, the proletariat is expected to 
return to society what it had taken from society! 
Or is the proletarian supposed to play the role of the 
valiant gladiator coming to the defense of society 
against its oppressors, the capitalist class? Society 
is helpless, the proletariat must wage a class struggle, 
in the interest of society. Society, however, doesn't 
know what's good for it and is bitterly opposed to a 
dictatorship of the proletariat. It actually resorts 
to armed opposition. Pshaw, society hardly deserves 



258 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

the sacrifices the proletariat expects to make in its 
behalf. 

But why can't society accompHsh its own emanci- 
pation? It can, and it will. Why can't the prole- 
tariat co-operate with society to their mutual advan- 
tage? The proletariat is co-operating with society. 
The only element that refuses to co-operate with 
society is the misnamed Socialist element, the ele- 
ment that insists on a class war. Fortunately for 
society and the proletariat, the vast majority of the 
proletariat rejects class consciousness as a means of 
progress and feels instinctively that in social con- 
sciousness Hes its hope. 

The proletariat turns its back on the so-called 
SociaHst Party and launches a Farmer Labor Party, 
but which in reality is a sociaHst Party, because its 
basis is not a class struggle, but a social struggle 
against a class. Its social appeal will attract hosts of 
supporters. 

The farmers refuse to join the Socialist Party, but 
form the Non-Partisan League. Here, too, the appeal 
is made along social lines. 

Another pohtical party is in the process of forma- 
tion. Noble men and women of all strata in society 
see the need for a true sociaHst party in this country. 
Many sponsors for this movement were formerly 
SociaHst Party members. When its antisocial prin- 
ciples came to the surface they found themselves out 
of their element and were compelled to leave. 

To whom will the Socialist Party cater? There 
can be Httle doubt that the Farmer Labor Party, 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 259 

the Noii-Piirtisiin League and the new social move- 
ment will fuse into one national i)arty. They will 
seek to serve the social interests of the majority as 
consumers. They will ai)p(^al to the social patriotism 
of the people. Will the Socialist Party meet this 
appeal with a call to the class conflict at the point of 
production? The new party will appeal to the sol- 
dier vote on the principle of making our country 
safe for democracy. Will the Socialist Party answer 
this \\'ith an appeal for a dictatorship of the prole- 
tariat? 

The new party wall appeal to the woman vote 
with the demand for social assumption of the dis- 
tribution of consumable wealth. Municipal ice, 
coal, milk, etc., will make a powerful appeal to the 
woman vote. Will the Socialist Party meet this 
appeal with the statement that the worker is ex- 
ploited only at the point of production? 

One of the most prominent women labor leaders of 
Great Britain says: 

It may surprise many, to learn that the program of the British 
Labor Party is founded upon the instinct of mother love, bid it is 
true. 

How will the Socialist Party meet this instinct — 
with an appeal to class consciousness? 

The Social Unit, the Community Center move- 
ment, the Public Ownership League, all these are 
later-day manifestations of the social processes going 
on under our very eyes. What hope is there for the 
Socialist Party if it persists in adhering to its Utopian, 
antisocial principles? 



260 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

The lesson of Social Evolution is this: Socialism 
must be the culmination of a consumer movement: 
it will be attained in response to the social interests 
of the majority as a more efficient means of solving 
their common problem of security in the means of 
life. 

A movement or a political party which seeks to be 
both Socialist and scientific must study the laws of 
Social Evolution and base its activities upon the 
modern manifestations of these laws. The move- 
ment or the pohtical party that will do this will find 
that it must be a consumer movement, not a pro- 
ducer movement; a social movement, not a class 
movement; a democratic movement, not a move- 
ment for a dictatorship. 

The practical program of the International So- 
ciahst movement, the program of the hated moderate 
Socialists and social patriots, fulfills all but one of 
the necessary requirements. It is the program of a 
consumer movement, a social movement, a demo- 
cratic movement. But it is not the program of a 
scientific movement. They who sponsor this prac- 
tical program believe that their Maraan theoretical 
principles constitute the scientific element in their 
movement. But they don't dare base their practical 
program upon these scientific principles. Experience 
has taught them that the vast majority of the masses 
refuse to be attracted by these principles. They 
therefore had to be rejected as a basis for a practical 
program. 

What constructive purpose have Marxian theo- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 261 

retical principles served the International Socialist 
movement? None whatsoever. They constitute the 
one destructive element not only to the International 
Socialist movement, but to society as a whole. 

To-day we are for the first time privileged to ob- 
serve the operations of Marxian theory put into prac- 
tice. Lenine, Trotsky and Bela Kun are attempting 
to apply Marxian principles in a practical way. 
They are forcing the proletariat, at the point of the 
bayonet, to accept Marxian principles. They do not 
dare grant the proletariat the opportunity to express 
his preference at the ballot box. The reason is obvi- 
ous. It is necessary, therefore, to shoot Marxian 
principles into the proletariat. What must be the 
inevitable outcome of this tragic burlesque? This 
trio of comic opera revolutionists will either be over- 
thrown or, to escape this fate, they will be com- 
pelled to make concessions upon concessions, com- 
promise upon compromise, until the practical pro- 
gram based upon Marxian principles will be com- 
pletely discarded and replaced by a practical pro- 
gram identical with that of the moderate Socialists 
and social patriots. It is the proletariat who must 
pay the fearful price in anguish and blood for the 
practical education of these self-appointed emanci- 
pators. 

And where are they attempting to put Marxian 
theory into practice — in countries where capitalism 
has attained its maximum development and has 
paved the way for Socialism? Not at all. Only 
countries like Russia and Hungary, where there is 



2G2 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

no developed capitalism, fall prey to these scientific 
Marxists. 

The highly developed capitalism of the United 
States, England and Germany offers an impregnable 
defense to the schemings of these dictators to the 
proletariat. Only when the resistance of the social 
body is broken down do these Marxists obtain their 
opportunity to pounce down upon their unsuspecting 
and defenseless victim and enforce their will upon 
him. That, of course, is the scientific way of estab- 
lishing the Socialist system of society! 

If, in the face of all these outstanding facts, the 
Socialist Party of this country, in common with the 
International Socialist movement, should insist on 
holding fast to Marxian principles in theory, though 
repudiating them in practice, its doom is inevitable. 
It will be wrecked and torn asunder by its own in- 
herent contradictions. It will disintegrate and die. 
Marxian theory, like a dead weight, will bear it 
down and bring about its complete destruction. 

But should the SociaUst Party in common with the 
International Socialist movement, in an effort to 
prove itself worthy of Marx, undertake a scientific 
investigation of its problems, it would have taken 
the first constructive step towards its regeneration. 
Such an investigation cannot limit itself, as hereto- 
fore, to a discussion of policy and tactics. Have we 
not had enough of such discussions? 

For fifty long years we have done nothing but dis- 
cuss policy and tactics, and what has it availed us? 
We must now get down to fundamentals. We must 



TflE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 203 

prove that we are genuine Marxists. We must have 
the courage to ask the question, What is scientific 
Socialism? And we must search for the answer by 
means of the scientific method and thus prove our 
true loyalty to Marx. 

Marx consecrated his life to but a single purpose, 
to prove that Socialism, to be scientific, cannot be 
the product of some ingenious brain, but must be 
based upon the laws of Social Evolution. 

To this test would Marx have submitted his prin- 
ciples and conclusions, were he living to-day. They 
who would honor Marx must defend his life labors 
against those who would divert them to destructive 
and antisocial purposes. Mai-x believed his labors 
completed. Social Evolution proved him mistaken. 
As true students and disciples our obvious duty does 
not end with the worship of his conclusions, but con- 
sists of the far nobler task of carrying his unfinished 
work to a more advanced stage, thus contributing 
something toward the sum total of human knowledge 
and achievements. 

What he left for us, his disciples, to determine, 
is whether his principles were based upon the laws of 
Social Evolution. Every trait in his makeup indi- 
cated that this was his mandate to his disciples. 
That mandate we must now carry out. 

Marx's first duty was to science. Our first duty, 
likewise, must be to science. If science dictates that 
we must discard Mai'xian principles, we have no 
choice in the matter. If Mai'xian principles are not 
based upon the laws of Social Evolution, they are 



264 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

Utopian. We have found that not only are they 
Utopian, but antisocial, and therefore a most de- 
structive and menacing force in society. None knew 
better than Marx the dangerous and destructive 
character of a Utopian movement. It was for these 
reasons that he devoted himself to a study of the 
laws of Social Evolution in the hope of being able to 
conform the Socialist movement to the laws of social 
progress, thus making it a scientific and therefore a 
constructive movement. He failed of his purpose, 
and it now devolves upon us to carry out and com- 
plete his task. 

The International Socialist movement can serve 
Marx only in so far as it serves society. It can serve 
society only in proportion as it emancipates itself 
from the antisocial Utopian dogma which has played 
such havoc with the movement and proved such a 
destructive force in society. Instead of discarding 
the practical program as the so-called Marxians 
would have us do, Social Evolution clearly indicates 
that it is the Marxian theoretical principles which 
must be discarded. The laws of Social Evolution 
furnish the scientific principles as a basis for the 
practical program. 

As a democratic, social movement, serving the 
masses as consumers. Socialism will for the first time 
become a scientific Socialist movement. No more 
will it combat other social movements on the mis- 
taken theory that the class struggle at the point of 
production is the law of social progress. On the 
contrary, henceforth, it will support every social 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 265 

movement aiming at some measure of social 
progress. 

In England the Socialist movement must unite 
with the British Labor Party. In our country the 
Socialist Party must support the Farmer Labor 
Party upon the basis of its social program. It must 
unite with the Non-Partisan League. It must pave 
the way for union with the groups of broadminded 
and socially visioned men and women who, repelled 
by the antisocial principles of the Socialist Party, 
feel compelled to launch a movement for a new party. 
The Social Unit movement, the Community Center 
movement, the Public Ownership League, because 
of their social spirit deserve the encouragement and 
support of every true Socialist. 

It is society that is exploited by the profit-making 
class. Every social reform enacted by the will of the 
people as expressed through a democratic State, 
constitutes a blow at the profit system. Organized 
society in its efforts to solve its problem of existence 
will first abolish those groups of the profit-making 
class that stand in the way of social progress. 
Through a process of furthering the consumer in- 
terests of the American people, society, after abolish- 
ing the profit principle in transportation, communi- 
cation and distribution, will work back to and finally 
take over production. Thus will the profit system 
disappear, and the Socialist system of society com- 
pletely evolve. Not in the interest of a class, but in 
the interest of the American people, will exploitation 
be abohshed. With Abraham Lincoln we can say, 



266 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

this country and all that is within it belongs to the people 
who inhabit it, and we must add, and who render a 
socially necessary service. 

Our appeal must be made to the social conscience, 
to social patriotism in the interest of society as a 
whole. We must appeal to the manhood and the 
womanhood of the country to join us in an effort to 
complete the great task undertaken by the fathers 
of our country, to secure for our people life, liberty 
and the pursuit of happiness. Only through Socialism 
can this great aim be attained, and only through 
social effort is Socialism possible. The word So- 
cialism is thrice ennobled by the knowledge that not 
one drop of human blood need stain the purity of its 
birth. On the contrary, it is to be the final culmina- 
tion of the ever-expanding social consciousness of the 
inherent value and nobility of human brotherhood. 

The democratic State, which is the highest expres- 
sion of political brotherhood, is the indispensable 
tool by which to attain industrial and social brother- 
hood. To speak of destroying the State is the height 
of reaction. The democratic State is the product of 
social progress. It is the business of scientific So- 
cialists to advance social progress instead of being 
instruments of destruction. It may be well to recall 
once more the warning uttered by Marx that "it is 
not a question of putting through some Utopian 
system, but of taking a conscious part in the process 
of social transformation which is going on before our 
very eyes." To-day, as throughout all history, the 
process of social transformation going on before our 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 2G7 

very eyes does not manifest itself as a class movement 
of producers, but as a social movement of consumers 
continuing the historic purpose of eliminating un- 
certainty in the means of life. 

Will my Comrades of the International Socialist 
movement co-operate with this historic process and 
thus prove themselves worthy disciples of Marx? 



APPENDIX I 

AN ANALYSIS OF HILLQUIT's ANALYSIS OF THE INTER- 
NATIONAL SOCIALIST SITUATION 

The New York Call of May 21, 1919, published a 
three-column article from the pen of Morris liillquit 
on the "Socialist Task and Outlook." 

Hillquit, in common with the rest of his Comrades, 
is greatly perturbed over the collapse of the Inter- 
national Sociahst movement and the upheaval within 
SociaUst ranks in America. *'It is safe to assert," 
says Hillquit, ''that at no time since the formation 
of the First International has the Socialist move- 
ment of the world been in a state of such physical 
disunion, moral feiTuent and intellectual confusion 
as it is to-day." No one, with the sHghtest knowledge 
of the facts, will contend that the seriousness o^ the 
situation is overstated by Hillquit. 

Not having been in active contact with the So- 
cialist situation for over a year, Hillquit was free 
from the heat and excitement of partisan strife, and 
therefore in an unusually advantageous position to 
undertake a serious and far-reaching analysis of the 
problems confronting the International SociaUst 
movement. His contribution to the Call is offered 
as a matured study of our problems, with their 
cause unerringly disclosed and the cure readily sug- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 2G9 

gcsted. Let us, then, as good students, sit at the 
feet of the master and observe his method of arriving 
at his diagnosis as to the true nature of the disease 
that is gnawing at the vitals of the International 
Socialist movement, and the remedies that must be 
apphed to insure a permanent cure. 

Since the very beginning of the World War, Hill- 
quit has been obsessed by paradoxes. Some we have 
already noted elsewhere. In his latest contribution 
he points out a new crop of paradoxes, all his own 
recent discoveries: 

The World War, [he says,] has placed the Socialist movement 
in Europe before a situation which it had not foreseen . . . and 
it reacted to it in a most unexpected and disheartening manner. 
Far from proving the formidable bulwark against war which 
their friends and enemies alike had beUeved them to be, the 
powerful cohorts of European Socialists, on the whole, supported 
their capitalist governments in their capitalist war aknost as 
enthusiastically and unresei-vedly as the most loyal Junker 
classes, and when, with the collapse of the war, the Socialist 
revolutions broke out in several countries, their fonns of struggle 
were equally startling. The bourgeoisie, agaiiist whom the 
revolutions were directed, made Uttle or no effective resistance, 
and the fight, repressive and sanguinary at times, was principally 
among those who before the war called each other Comrades in 
the SociaUst movement. 

There is something radically wrong in a movement that could 
mature svx:h sad paradoxes and that wrong must be discovered 
and ehminated, if the International SociaUst movement is to 
survive as an effective instrument of the working class revolu- 
tion. . . . What were the economic causes which deflected the 
SociaUst movement of Europe from the path of revolutionary, 
proletarian internationalism? And the answer is as startling 
and paradoxical as the entire recent course of the SociaUst 



270 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

movement. It was the economic organization of the European 
workers and the pressure of their immediate economic iyitcrests 
[as understood by them] that broke the solidarity of the SociaUst 
International. [Italics mine.] 

Precisely. We hasten to congratulate Comrade 
Hillquit on his brilliant, albeit paradoxical, diag- 
nosis. The shattered and warring International 
furnishes the tragic but eloquent proof how Utopian 
is the Marxian conception that class conflict sways 
man's actions and is the determining motive power 
ruUng in society. Preaching, no matter how elo- 
quent, no matter how persistent and enduring, 
cannot create social laws. The masses may hsten 
and appear convinced, but when put to the test the 
true social laws come sharply to the surface and 
demonstrate their inexorable control over social 
processes. When the war came on, "the revolu- 
tionary, proletarian International" sought to separ- 
ate the proletariat from the rest of society and bind 
them fast with its man-made antisocial theory of 
_ class conflict as the primal force in history. And 
'> what was the consequence? The revolutionary 

International was burst asunder, shattered to atoms, 
a victim to its own Utopianism. The primal instinct 
of the masses dictated their course and determined 
their actions. They turned their backs on the class 
conflict theory and in harmony with all other classes 
in their respective nations rushed to the defense of 
their social interests to which the war held out an 
inunediate threat. 

Hillquit is absolutely correct in stating further 



->' 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 271 

that the striving of the organized workers to preserve 
their economic position within the industrial system of 
tJieir country and to protect it against the menace of 
enemy capitalists, is the basis of the war patriotism of 
their parliamentary representatives. 

If this clear explanation as furnished by himself, 
appears ''startling and paradoxical" to Hillquit, it 
is but a proof that he hasn't the slightest conception 
of the true laws of Social Evolution. Whenever he 
observes phenomena of the operations of the true 
laws of Social Evolution, he is bewildered and writes 
them down as ''startling paradoxes," of which he 
appears to have gathered quite a collection. 

Hillquit is very much annoyed and put out by the 
puzzling pranks played by modern history. "His- 
tory has recently shown an almost provoking dis- 
regard for preconceived theories and rigid formulae," 
he complains. Do you wish us to infer from this, 
Comrade Hillquit, that until recently history did 
conform to "preconceived theories and rigid formu- 
lae"? Can you point to a single epoch in which 
Marx's theories were not disregarded by history? 
The fact that Marx laid down some preconceived 
theories and rigid formulae for the guidance of his- 
tory doesn't necessarily imply that history will take 
the shghtest notice of them. And just because a 
large group of followers, who call themselves scientific 
Socialists, have devoted more than seventy years to 
the impossible task of forcing history to conform to 
preconceived theories and rigid formulae, is it to be 
expected that history, out of gratitude, will depart 

IS 



1^5 



/ -' 



272 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

from her true path and purpose? History spurns 
those who would seek to master and control her ac- 
tions, her reward going only to those who can under- 
stand and will co-operate with her. 

Let us return to Hillquit. We have seen that he 
has discerned the motive which prompted the masses 
to turn from the path of revolutionary, proletarian, 
internationalism. It was due to the pressure of their 
immediate economic interests (''as understood by 
them"). But what is the meaning of the parenthe- 
sis? By whom else could the pressure of their irnme- 
diate economic interests have been better understood 
than hy them? Is that pressure better understood by 
Hillquit? And should the European workers have 
gone first to Hillquit for a more revolutionary and 
scientific understanding of the pressure of their imme- 
diate economic interest? It seems that the workers 
felt in no need of advice. There was quite a group 
who with views similar to those of Hillquit's tried 
their utmost to force their own scientific under- 
standing of the workers' economic interests. The 
workers ignored them. 

While Hillquit may believe that they can have 
but a parenthetical understanding of their inamediate 
economic interests, the workers have shown that 
they have a most practical and farsighted under- 
standing; an understanding which indicates to them 
the harmony of their social interests with those of 
other classes within their nation. The war threat- 
ened the social status of the workers, their status as 
social beings and consumers, precisely as it threat- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 273 

ened that of the other classes, and it was this har- 
mony of social interests that acted as the binding 
force in every nation. 

Hillquit undertook a survey of all countries with 
a view to determining where Socialism had been 
^'betrayed" most completely, and why: 

Tlic countries in which the SociaHst movement failed most 
lamentably are predsely those in which the movement was most 
closely linked with organized labor, while the principles of Inter- 
national Solidarity were upheld most rigorously in countries in 
which the economic labor movement was either very weak or 
quite detached fro7n the Socialist movement. [My italics.] 

Well do we remember how Socialists — and Hillquit 
among them — pointed proudly to Germany and 
Austria as shining examples of consistent trade 
union policy of using both arms of the labor move- 
ment, their trade union on the economic and the 
Socialist party on the political field. But now this 
pride must turn to shame, for the countries in which 
the Socialist movement failed most lamentably are pre- 
cisely those in which the movement was most closely 
linked with organized labor. 

What, then, is the inference to be drawn from these facts? 
[asks Hillquit.] Shall revolutionarj'' Sociahsm hereafter disasso- 
ciate itself from organized labor? By no means. A Socialist 
movement without the support of the workers is a sort of dis- 
embodied spirit; in fact, a spook. Sociahsm must remain the 
political and spiritual guide of the working class, but it must 
reorganize and re-educate the working class. [My italics.] 

Now let us see where we are at. 

Revolutionary Socialism was betrayed most thor- 



274 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

oughly wherever it was linked with labor most 
thoroughly, and, conversely, wherever the Socialist 
movement was detached from the labor movement 
it upheld its '^ principles of international solidarity." 
How is this ''paradox" to be explained? 

The trade union movement is based upon the same 
underlying principles as the International Socialist 
movement. It concerns itself with exploitation at 
the point of production — it is an economic class 
movement. 

The Socialist movement has for years concentrated 
its energies in an effort to "educate," cajole or brow- 
beat organized labor into taking its economic class 
interests into the political field. But organized labor 
refused to budge, as it seemed to recognize that the 
pohtical field is essentially a social field and not a 
class field, and that the political method is essen- 
tially a social method, not a class method. 

In the United States the labor movement pre- 
ceded the Socialist movement. No sooner did the 
Socialist movement make its appearance than it 
proceeded to make plans to "capture" the labor 
movement. It sought to force the labor movement 
to take its economic class problems into the political 
field. The Socialists' attempt was defeated. In 
Germany and Austria the Socialist movement pre- 
ceded the labor movement. The labor movement of 
those countries is, in fact, the creation, the child of 
the Socialist movement. But did the Socialist move- 
ment, though it fathered these labor movements, 
succeed here, whereas it had failed in other countries? 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 275 

Did the labor movements of Germany and Austria 
take their economic class interests into the political 
field through the Socialist movement? Not at all. 
Despite the wishes of the revolutionary leaders, the 
labor movement forced the Socialist movement to 
concern itseK with the social, with the consumer 
interests of the workers, while through its economic 
organizations it cared for their class interests as 
producers. 

The Socialist movement, to retain the political 
support of the workers, was compelled to adopt a 
social program, and not a class program. 

Then came the war. Again the revolutionary 
leaders sought to separate the workers along lines of 
"class solidarity" from the other classes with 
whom they had common social interests. Were they 
successful this time in their attempt to apply their 
"historic law"? Unfortunately, while the class 
conflict theory may be a historic law, the workers 
don't seem to know it and refuse to be governed by 
it. The war offered an immediate threat to the social 
interests of the workers; they, therefore, ralHed to 
the support of their governments and attached 
themselves more firmly to the other classes in an 
effort to protect their common social interests. 

The Socialist movement in those countries found 
itself face to face with a very definite and concrete 
problem which presented a choice of but one of two 
solutions — loyalty to Mai-xian principles and loss of 
the support of the workers, or loyalty to the workers 
and abandoning of Marxian principles. It was a 



27G THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

hard choice, but it had to be made. And what in- 
fluenced their decision? Why, it was none other 
than Hillquit's own principle that ''a SociaUst move- 
ment without the support of the workers is a sort of 
disembodied spirit; in fact, a spook." The SociaUst 
movement feared to be deprived of the support of 
the workers and left alone, for it was afraid of 
spooks. And yet Hillquit points an accusing finger 
and says that the Parliaments of Germany and 
France were the scenes of Socialist betrayal ! 

The workers rushed to protect their social interests 
and the Socialist movement, to retain its hold upon 
the masses, was compelled to follow suit. 

Was this the first instance in which the Socialists 
permitted themselves to be led by the workers when 
a vital question came up for decision? For the 
answer, we refer Comrade Hillquit to a well-known 
work entitled, Socialism in Theory and Practice, in 
which he will find a passage dealing with a similar 
situation and which reads as follows: 

While the leaders were discussing the theoretical aspects of 
the problem, the masses, as usual in practical questions, solved 
it, and, as usual, solved it right. The Sociahsts went into politics 
yielding to the instincts of the masses rather than following the 
reasoned policies of the leaders. 

The same holds true of the war, for the Socialists 
supported the war, yielding to the instincts of the 
masses rather than to the -policies of the leaders. 

The organized labor movement was consistent 
throughout. With the oncome of the war in the 
United States, the labor movement, though organ- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 277 

ized as a class movement of producers, reacted at 
once to the more vital social interests of its members 
and made common cause with all other classes in 
furtherance of their common social interests. There 
was no hesitancy on the part of American organized 
labor which, uninfluenced by class solidarity dogma, 
wasted little time in the process of breaking away 
from its spell. 

Comrade Hillquit gives a long Hst of countries — 
Germany, Austria, Belgium, France and Great 
Britain, which were scenes of SociaHst ''betrayal." 
And in what countries was there no ''betrayal"? 

Hillquit is forced to go to Russia, Italy and the 
Balkan countries, in which organized labor was a 
negligible factor in the Socialist movement, the 
Socialists have successfully withstood the wave of 
nationalist reaction. Not a very formidable hst 
and little to boast of, even if it were a hundred per 
cent true. But is it? What proof does Comrade 
Hillquit offer that Russian labor and Socialists did 
not support the war? The fact that Lenine and 
Trotsky did not support the war is apparently all 
sufficient for Hillquit. Assuming that Hillquit's 
statement is entirely correct, what is the logical 
deduction to be made from his own facts? An irre- 
sponsible person, having nothing to lose, can afford 
to be reckless. The same holds true of a movement. 

The Socialist Party of the United States adopted 
the St. Louis platform, because it had nothing to 
lose by sticking to dogma. It never had a grip upon 
organized labor and therefore could not very well 



278 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

stand to lose what it never had. But it did have a 
substantial membership and general following, and 
what happened to that after the St. Louis platform 
was adopted? And what is taking place within the 
remaining membership to this very day? What a 
simple task it is to make fiery, r-r-revolutionary 
"class-conscious" speeches calling for "mass action," 
when you have nothing to lose and when no one 
pays the slightest attention to you. 

But the Socialist Parties of the European countries 
were faced with an entirely different situation. They 
did have a grip upon the labor movement and stood 
to lose that grip unless they did labor's bidding. 
Labor won. Hillquit is quite right when he says, 
"Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg and Franz 
Mehring in Germany, Fritz Adler in Austria, Lenine 
and Trotsky in Russia, and Jean Louquet in France, 
all intellectuals, that led the Socialist revolts in their 
countries, because intellectuals are long on theory 
and short on facts; but the movement as a whole 
was compelled to join the workers in support of their 
social interests "as understood by them," and who. 
Comrade Hillquit, can claim to be better qualified 
to understand their interests than the workers 
themselves? 

And now let us turn to Hillquit's remedy for the 
ills of the Second International and note his sug- 
gestions as to how "its mistakes are to be avoided 
in the future." 

Hillquit is assuredly right in saying that this is 
the main question which agitates and divides the 



TFIE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 279 

Socialist movement to-day and ujjon the solulion of 
which the future of our movcmeyii depends. 

With a full appreciation of the gravity of the situ- 
ation and the disastrous results that must follow a 
false step, Hillquit delivers himself as follows: 

The first task of the post-war Socialist International must be 
to organize and reorganize all grades and strata of labor on 
broad class lines, not only nationallj^, but internationally. Not 
as trade unions, nor even as mere uidustrial unions, but as one 
working class union. This is the first lesson to be drmni from the 
recent experiences and failures of the old hiternatioiial. [Italics 
mine.] 

And there you are! Here is the remedy, now go 
and apply it. Organize labor on "broad class hnes" 
— Hillquit would have it so. Has history "recently " 
shown an almost "provoking disregard for precon- 
ceived theories and rigid formulae"? Well, "the 
first lesson to be drawn from the recent experience" 
is, that history must be taught a lesson she will not 
soon forget! The post-war Socialist International 
must organize and reorganize labor into one interna- 
tional working class union and thus teach history 
that she shouldn't be so provoking and should show 
proper regard for preconceived theories and rigid 
formulae ! Such is Hillquit's remedy for avoiding the 
mistakes of the Second International! It is the solu- 
tion upon which the future of our movement depends. 
How would Marx have greeted such a "scientific 
solution"? Does it conform with his ideas of scien- 
tific procedure, which is that of "taking a conscious 
part in the process of social transformation which is 






2S0 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

going on before our very eyes," or is it more in keep- 
ing with his views of ''empty-headed and conscience- 
less play with propaganda"? 

Hillqiiit tells us that Socialism must remain the 
political and spiritual guide of the working class, 
but it must reorganize and re-educate the working 
class. But why reorganize and re-educate? Because 
it has not properly exercised its pohtical and spiritual 
guidance in the past? If this is his view, Hillquit is 
laboring under the same fatal error as did the Second 
International. How can Socialism remain what it 
isn't and never was? The Second International 
believed that it was the pohtical and spiritual guide 
to the working class, but the facts clearly indicate 
that exactly the reverse is true. It was the working 
class that was the political and spiritual guide to the 
Second International. 

How did such a "paradoxical" situation come to 
pass? It was all due to over-ambition, Comrade 
Hillquit. Ambition, you know, has slain many a 
man and many a movement. The Second Interna- 
tional was not content with being ''Left." It was 
not satisfied to be Left as an incoherent sect. It 
was ambitious; it wanted to grow in numbers and 
in influence; it wanted to capture the masses; it 
went Right to the masses, with the result that it was 
captured by the masses and compelled to stay Right 
with them. Thereafter, it was the masses who dic- 
tated the policy of the Second International. The 
principles of a class movement of producers were 
Left behind, the masses insisting that they give way 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 281 

to a positive program based upon a social movement 
of consumers. The masses had re-educated and re- 
organized the Second International and became 
"its political and spiritual guide." It is here, Com- 
rade Hillquit, where you must look for the answer 
to your question, *' Why did the Second International 
fail?" 

"It was not parliamentarism which was primarily 
responsible for the mischief," says Hillquit; "on the 
whole, the Socialists in Parliament expressed the 
sentiments of their constituents pretty faithfully." 
Precisely. They had to or they would have been 
"Left" — without constituents. Show me a move- 
ment that is consistently Left and I will show you a 
movement that is consistently Left — severely alone 
by the masses. Any movement can have the sup- 
port of the masses provided it is willing to pay the 
price, and the price exacted by the masses is, that all 
"preconceived theories and rigid formulae" be 
abandoned, and that thereafter the masses control 
the policy and use the Party in their own interest 
as "understood by them." The Second International 
paid the price, and who dare say that the masses 
have not faithfully carried out their end of the bar- 
gain? See to what huge proportions the Second 
International had grown while the contract was in 
force. Wherever the Socialists broke the contract 
and reverted back to their preconceived theories 
of class strife, the masses turned from them in 
disgust. 

The Second International failed, but for different 



282 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

reasons than those advanced by Hillquit. It failed 
because it was not an emancipating movement, but 
a slave movement, and the most pathetic kind of a 
slave movement, for it was entirely unconscious of 
its slavish condition. At first it was a slave to Marx- 
ian "preconceived theories and rigid formulae." 
Then it became a slave to ambition. It wanted to 
grow, to attract the masses. But the masses refused 
to be attracted by theories. Too much of a slave to 
Marxism to drop his theories, too much of a slave 
to ambition to drop the masses, it solved the problem 
by binding itself over to a third master, the working 
class. Thus did it "capture the working class." And 
on top of all this the Second International is a slave 
to the hallucination that it is a scientific movement 
of emancipation, acting as the ''political and spiritual 
guide to the labor movement"! And this is the 
movement that assured the capitalist system that it 
was in imminent danger of collapse — a victim to its 
own inherent contradictions! The capitalist system 
is still here and organized into an International, but 
where is the Socialist International? 

Hillquit turns next to the existing situation in 
Russia, Hungary and Germany. ''In all cases," says 
Hillquit, "in which the proletariat of a country in 
revolution has assumed the reins of government as 
a pure working class government, determined upon 
the immediate socialization of the country, the true 
Socialists of all countries will support it." What 
does Hillquit mean by a "pure working class govern- 
ment"? If there is to be an immediate socialization 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 2S3 

of the country, then why not a pure Socialist govern- 
ment? Or has Hillquit come to beheve with Lenine 
and Trotsky that the proletarian state, like every other 
state, is an apparatus of repression, and therefore a 
pure Sociahst government would not do as it might 
be too democratic? 

Lenine and Trotsky tell us that the problem of the 
proletariat consists in immediately seizing the power of 
the State; this seizure of the power of the State means 
the destruction of the State apparatus of the bourgeoisie 
and the organization of a new proletarian apparatus 
of power. But Hillquit^ has been teaching that the 
Socialist conceptiori of the world process is evolutionary, 
not cataclysmic; Socialism has come to huild, not to 
destroy. Which of these is the true Socialist of all 
countries to support? 

Hillquit answers by saying that "the Socialists of 
the foreign countries are faced by an accomplished 
fact and by the simple alternative of supporting the 
revolution or counter revolution." Very well. But 
what should be the attitude of true Socialists of all 
countries towards revolutions aiming at a dictator- 
ship of the proletariat and the destruction of the 
State, where it is not yet an accomplished fact? 
''True" Sociahsts must support this aim also, says 
Hillquit. ''In countries like Germany, in which the 
struggle for mastery hes between two divisions of 
the Socialist movement, one class conscious and the 
other opportunist, one radical and the other tem- 
porizing, the support of the Socialist International 

1 Socialism Summed Up, Hillquit. 



284 TUB SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

must for the same reason go to the former.''^ For 
what reason? Because they are class conscious and 
seek to estabhsh a proletarian dictatorship through 
all the agonies of a civil war? Did Hillquit consider 
himself a true Socialist when he wrote that The great 
modern -problems can he solved peacefully and rationally 
only hy a people free to shape its own destinies? ''■ Did 
the Spartacide group with its dictatorship of the 
proletariat and the destruction of the State principles 
offer to the German people a more peaceful and more 
democratic method of shaping its own destinies 
than does the present democratic Govermiient? 

And now, what about our own country; should 
true Socialists support the American prototype of 
the Bolsheviki of Russia and the Spartacides of Ger- 
many; that is, the "Left Wing" movement? Why 
not? The Bolsheviki support them and bid them 
welcome to the Communist Congress while expressly 
excluding the Sociahst Party. But Hillquit says he is 
opposed to the " Left Wing " movement in the United 
States because it is essentially reactionary and non- 
Socialistic. Hillquit seems to believe that only true 
Sociahsts of foreign countries should support Left 
Wing movements. He, as a "true" Sociahst, sup- 
ports the Left Wing movement of Russia, Germany 
and Hungary, while the true Sociahsts of those coun- 
tries support the Left Wing movement in the United 
States. But Hillquit does not agree with the " true" 
Socialists of foreign countries that the Left Wing 
stands for "true" Socialism in the United States, 

* Socialism Summed Up, Hillquit. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 285 

No, no; the Left Wing of this country ''is essentially 
reactionary and non-Sociahstic," but transplant the 
Left Wing movement to some European country — 
Ah! then Hillquit as a "true" Socialist will support 
it "for the same reason." 

But wait; Hillquit has a scientific and logical (?) 
explanation for his paradoxical position. He says, 
"To prate about the dictatorship of the proletariat 
and the 'workers' Soviets' in the United States at 
this time is to deflect the Socialist propaganda from 
its reahstic basis," and is therefore "essentially 
reactionary and non-Sociahstic," but "to prate 
about the dictatorship of the proletariat and the 
workers' Soviets in Russia, Hungary and Germany 
at this time" is, of course, essentially progressive 
and Socialistic! But how are we to know the exact 
time when it becomes Socialistic to "prate about the 
dictatorship of the proletariat"? Upon this knowl- 
edge depends whether we are to come under Hill- 
quit's classification as being either reactionary and 
non-Socialistic, or progressive and Socialistic. 

It is vitally important, therefore, that for the 
answer we turn to none but authoritative sources. 
And where can we find a better authority than 
Hillquit himself? Here is his answer: 

They [Socialists] hold that no system can be radically changed 
until it is rijie for the transformation, and they consider the degree 
of development of every country of prime importance in determining 
whether it offers fertile ground for the success of Socialism. [My 
italics.]^ 

■* Socialism Sujnmed Up, p. 33. 



286 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

Can you not see that the degree of development of 
Russia and Hungary makes it of "prime importance" 
that Hillquit as a ''scientific" SociaHst give his sup- 
port to those who ''prate of the dictatorship of the 
proletariat" for those countries at this time? But 
the backwardness (?) of industrial development in the 
United States as compared with Russia and Hungary 
is scientific proof that "to prate about the dictator- 
ship of the proletariat" in this country "at this time 
is essentially reactionary and non-Socialistic." 

It is with such scientific arguments that our 
"constructive" leaders hope to conquer the Left 
Wing movement. No wonder Left Wing members 
take such keen delight in exposing the logic of their 
opponents. 

Hillquit seems to be well aware of the hopeless 
sterility of his argument as a means of bringing about 
a reconcihation between the several factions, for he 
himself says that it would be futile to preach recon- 
cihation and union where antagonism runs high. 
"Let the Comrades separate honestly, freely and 
without rancor. . . . Better a hundred times to have 
two numerically small Socialist organizations . . . 
than to have one big party torn by dissentions and 
squabbles, an impotent colossus on feet of clay." 

This is by no means a new remedy. It was utiHzed 
twenty years ago, as a means of curing the dissen- 
tions within the Socialist Labor Party. After twenty 
years of slow and laborious effort to build up a new 
national organization to which the masses might 
turn with confidence, we find that we have built a 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 287 

Frankenstein instead, ^^an impotent colossus on feet 
of clay," and therefore must break it up and start all 
over again. 

Such is the only remedy that suggests itself to the 
leader of a movement which claims that scientific 
understanding of social processes is the unerring 
guide for its actions! 

Hillquit apparently favors two small SociaHst 
organizations. But there are more than two So- 
cialist organizations already, Comrade Hillquit. 
There is the Socialist Labor Party. Then there is 
the group that sj^lit away from the party following 
the adoption of the St. Louis platform. And between 
the Left and Right Wings stands the group of the 
Center, unable to attach itself permanently to either 
side. So we have five numerically small organiza- 
tions, each contending that it holds the only true 
scientific Socialist position. 

In the face of these sombre facts, how hollow 
sounds Hillquit's closing and forced flourish: "Time 
for action is near. Let us clear the decks.' 

Yes, the time for action is near and here, but the 
ship is upon the rocks, without compass and without 
light; a prey to the waves of dogma and passion. 

With the Left Wing problem thus amicably 
"solved," Hillquit offers a "constructive" program 
for those still remaining within the party. Here 
it is: 

The platform and the pohcies of the SociaHst Party rmtst be 

revised in keeping not only with the development of Socialism abroad, 

but also with regard to the changes wrought by the war in the 
19 



288 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

United States. . . . Propaganda in International Socialism in the 
modern and advanced meaning of the term, propaganda of new 
class-line unionism, etc. [My italics.] 

Why does Hillquit speak of the ''modern" and 
"advanced" meaning of the term? Should he not 
have said the old but relegated meaning of the term? 
All the modern critics of the Second International 
agree that its failure was due to the fact that it 
''forgot the teachings of the founders of scientific 
Socialism." Hillquit agrees with Lenine and Trot- 
sky, the Spartacides and the Left Wingers, that the 
way to avoid the mistakes of the Second Interna- 
tional in the future is to hark back to the teachings 
of the founders of scientific Socialism; to make the 
"modern" and "advanced" synonymous with the 
ancient and retrogressive; thus alone is it possible 
to create a "modern" and "advanced" scientific 
Socialist International ! 

The fundamental revisions suggested by Hillquit 
are identically the same as those of the Left Wing 
group. He frankly states, that he would be the last 
man in the party to ignore or misunderstand the 
sound revolutionary impulse which animates the rank 
and file of this new movement, but — but Hillquit 
lacks the courage and consistency to support it, in 
this country. 

Hillquit published his analysis of the national and 
international Socialist situation because he was con- 
vinced that the voluminous discussions that had thus 
far been published "furnishes no guide for correc- 
tion, " therefore Hillquit's contribution. If there was 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 289 

a doubt still lurking in anyone's mind as to the hope- 
less steriHty of modern SociaHst thought (?) Hillquit's 
contribution should have eliminated it. 

What would have been Marx's opinion of such a 
"guide for correction"? Did Marx, too, look to 
man-made dogma formulated in years past for his 
"guide for correction"? Or did he look for them in 
the actual social processes? Did Marx believe that 
the scientific Sociahst is he who seeks to force some 
"preconceived theories and rigid formula?" upon 
society, or did he consecrate his life to the task of 
proving that scientific Socialism must be based on 
an understanding of and co-operation with Social 
Evolution? 

To be considered a genuine disciple of Marx, Hill- 
quit must for once emulate the methods of Marx. 
Marx is no longer here to do the thinking for him. 
He must undertake an independent investigation of 
the workings of Social Evolution and determine for 
himself why it is that social processes fail to conform 
with Marxian conclusions. Then he will find that 
"the answer is as startling and paradoxical as the 
entire recent course of the Socialist movement." 



APPENDIX II 

"manifesto and program of the left wing 
section socialist party " 

"Proletarian revolutions, such as those of the nineteenth 
century, criticize themselves constantly; constantly interrupt 
themselves in their own course; come back to what seems to 
have been accomplished, in order to start over anew ; scorn with 
cruel thoroughness the haK measures, weaknesses and meannesses 
of their first attempts; seem to throw down their adversary only 
in order to enable him to draw fresh strength from the earth, 
and again to rise up against them in more gigantic stature; 
constantly recoil in fear before the undefined monster magni- 
tude of their own objects — until finally that situation is created 
which renders all retreat impossible, and the conditions them- 
selves cry out: ^Hic Rhodus, hie salta!'" — Ka.rl Marx, 
Eighteenth Brumaire. 

"Between the capitalistic society and the communistic hes 
the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into 
the other. This corresponds to a poUtical transition period, in 
w^liich the state cannot be anything else but the dictatorship of 
the proletariat. Now the 1875 program has neither anytliing to 
do with the latter, nor with the future state of the communistic 
society. Its political demands contain nothing outside of the 
old democratic litany, known to all the world — universal fran- 
chise, direct legislation, popular rights, protection of the people, 
etc. It is simply an echo of the old People's Party, the Peace 
and Liberty AUiance." — Karl Marx. Critique Soc. Dem. 
Program, 1875. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 291 

The members of the Socialist Party are entitled 
to an explanation for the issuance of this pamphlet 
by the Left Wing Section. 

We are a very active and growing section of 
the Socialist Party who are attempting to reach 
the rank and file with our urgent message over 
the heads of the powers that be, who, through 
inertia or a lack of vision, cannot see the neces- 
sity for a critical analysis of the party's policies and 
tactics. 

The official Socialist Party press is in the main 
closed to us; therefore, we cannot adequately pre- 
sent our side of the case. 

In the various discussions that arise wherever 
party members or delegates assemble, both sides 
grow too heated for calm, dispassionate judgment. 

Therefore, we have decided to issue our Mani- 
festo and Program in pamphlet form, so that the 
rank and file may read and judge our case on its 
merits. 

Comrades — and this is addressed to members of 
the party — the situation is such that a careful study 
of our position is absolutely imperative. 

"manifesto'' 

Prior to August, 1914, the nations of the world 
Hved on a volcano. Violent eruptions from time to 
time gave warning of the cataclysm to come, but 
the diplomats and statesmen managed to localize the 
outbreaks, and the masses, slightly aroused, sank 



292 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

back into their accustomed lethargy with doubts and 
misgivings, and the subterranean fires continued to 
smolder. 

Many trusted blindly — some in their statesmen, 
some in the cohesive power of Christianity, their 
common religion, and some in the growing strength 
of the international Socialist movement. Had not 
the German Social-Democracy exchanged dramatic 
telegrams with the French Socialist Party, each 
pledging itself not to fight in case their governments 
declare war on each other! A general strike of work- 
ers led by these determined Socialists would quickly 
bring the governments to their senses! 

So the workers reasoned, until the thunder-clap of 
Sarejevo and Austria's ultimatum to Serbia. Then, 
suddenly, the storm broke. Mobilization every- 
where. Everywhere declarations of war. In three 
or four days Europe was in arms. 

The present structure of Society — Capitalism — 
with its pretensions to democracy on the one hand, 
and its commercial rivalries, armament rings and 
standing armies on the other, all based on the ex- 
ploitation of the working class and the division of 
the loot, was cast into the furnace of war. Two 
things only could issue forth: either international 
capitalist control, through a League of Nations, or 
Social Revolution and the Dictatorship of the Pro- 
letariat. Both of these forces are to-day contending 
for world power. 

The Social Democracies of Europe, unable or un- 
willing to meet the crisis, were themselves hurled 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 293 

into the conflagration, to be tempered or consumed 
by it. 



THE COLLAPSE OF THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL 

Great demonstrations were held in every European 
country by Sociahsts protesting against their govern- 
ments' declarations of war, and mobilizations for war. 
And we know that these demonstrations were ren- 
dered impotent by the complete surrender of the 
Socialist parliamentary leaders and the official 
Socialist press, with their "justifications" of "de- 
fensive wars" and the safeguarding of "democracy." 

Why the sudden change of front? Why did the 
Socialist leaders in the parliaments of the belligerents 
vote the war credits? WTiy did not Moderate So- 
cialism carry out the pohcy of the Basle Manifesto, 
namely: the converting of an imperialistic war into 
a civil war — into a proletarian revolution? Why did 
it either openly favor the war or adopt a policy of 
petty-bourgeois pacificism? 



THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERATE "SOCIALISM" 

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the 
Social-Democracies of Europe set out to "legislate 
Capitalism out of office." The class struggle was to 
be won in the capitalist legislatures. Step by step 
concessions were to be wrested from the state; the 
working class and the Socialist parties were to be 
strengthened by means of "constructive" reform 



294 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

and social legislation; each concession would act as 
a rung in the ladder of Social Revolution, upon which 
the workers could climb step by step, until finally, 
some bright sunny morning, the peoples would 
awaken to find the Co-operative Commonwealth 
functioning without disorder, confusion or hitch on 
the ruins of the capitalist state. 

And what happened? Wlien a few legislative seats 
had been secured, the thunderous denunciations of 
the Socialist legislators suddenly ceased. No more 
were the parliaments used as platforms from which 
the challenge of revolutionary Socialism was flung to 
all the corners of Europe. Another era had set in, 
the era of "constructive" social reform legislation. 
Dominant Modern Socialism accepted the bourgeois 
state as the basis of its action and strengthened that 
state. All power to shape the policies and tactics 
of the Socialist parties was intrusted to the parlia- 
mentary leaders. And these lost sight of Social- 
ism's original purpose; their goal became "con- 
structive reforms" and cabinet portfolios — the "co- 
operation of classes," the pohcy of openly or tacitly 
declaring that the coming of Socialism was a concern 
"of all the classes," instead of emphasizing the 
Marxian poHcy that the construction of the So- 
cialist system is the task of the revolutionary 
proletariat alone. "Moderate Sociahsm" in the 
hands of these parhamentary leaders was now ready 
to share responsibility with the bourgeoisie in the 
control of the capitalist state, even to the extent of 
defending the bourgeoisie against the working class 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 205 

— as in the first Briand Ministry in France, when 
the official party press was opened to a defense of 
the shooting of striking railway-workers at the order 
of the Socialist Bourgeois CoaHtion Cabinet. 



"sausage socialism" 

This situation was brought about by mixing the 
democratic cant of the eighteenth century with 
scientific Sociahsm. The result was what Rosa 
Luxemburg called * ' sausage Socialism. ' ' The ' ' Mod- 
erates" emphasized petty-bourgeois social reformism 
in order to attract tradesmen, shopkeepers and 
members of the professions, and, of course, the latter 
flocked to the Socialist movement in great numbers, 
seeking relief from the constant grinding between 
corporate capital and awakening labor. 

The Socialist organizations actively competed for 
votes, on the basis of social reforms, with the bour- 
geois-liberal pohtical parties. And so they catered 
to the ignorance and prejudices of the workers, 
trading promises of immediate reforms for votes. 

Dominant "moderate Sociahsm" forgot the teach- 
ings of the founders of scientific Sociahsm, forgot its 
function as a proletarian movement — "the most 
resolute and advanced section of the working-class 
parties" — and permitted the bourgeois and self- 
seeking trade union elements to shape its policies 
and tactics. This was the condition in which the 
Social-Democracies of Europe found themselves at 
the outbreak of war in 1914. Demorahzed and con- 



290 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

fused by the cross-currents within their own parties, 
vacillating and compromising with the bourgeois 
state, they fell a prey to social-patriotism and 
nationalism. 



SPARTACIDES AND BOLSHEVIKI 

But revolutionary Socialism was not destined to 
lie inert for long. In Germany, Karl Liebknecht, 
Franz Mehring, Rosa Luxemburg and Otto Ruble 
organized the Spartacus Group. But their voices 
were drowned in the roar of cannon and the shrieks 
of the djdng and the maimed. 

Russia, however, was to be the first battleground 
where '^moderate" and revolutionary Socialism 
should come to grips for the mastery of the state. 
The breakdown of the corrupt, bureaucratic Czarist 
regime opened the flood-gates of Revolution. 

Three main contending parties attempted to ride 
into power on the revolutionary tide; the Cadets, 
the ''moderate Socialists" (Mensheviki and Social 
Revolutionists), and the revolutionary Socialists — • 
the Bolsheviki. The Cadets were first to be swept 
into power; but they tried to stem the still-rising 
flood with a few abstract pohtical ideals, and were 
soon carried away. The soldiers, workers, and peas- 
ants could no longer be fooled by phrases. The Men- 
sheviki and Social Revolutionaries succeeded the 
Cadets. And now came the crucial test: would 
they, in accord with Marxian teachings, make them- 
selves the ruling class and sweep away the old con- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 297 

ditions of production, and thus prepare the way for 
the Co-operative Commonwealth? Or would they 
tinker with the old machinery and try to foist it on 
the masses as something just as good? 

They did the latter and proved for all time that 
''moderate Sociahsm" cannot be trusted. 

''Moderate Sociahsm" was not prepared to seize 
the power for the workers during a revolution. 
"Moderate Sociahsm" had a rigid formula — "con- 
structive social reform legislation within the cap- 
itahst sta,te" and to that formula it clung. It be- 
Heved that bourgeois democracy could be used as a 
means of constructing the Socialist system; there- 
fore, it must wait until the people, through a Con- 
stituent Assembly, should vote Socialism into ex- 
istence. And in the meantime, it held that there 
must be established a Government of Coalition with 
the enemy, the bourgeoisie. As if, with all the 
means of controlling public opinion in the hands of 
the bourgeoisie, a Constituent Assembly could or 
would ever vote the Sociahsts into power! 

Revolutionary Socialists hold, with the founders 
of scientific Socialism, that there are two dominant 
classes in society — the bourgeoisie and the pro- 
letariat; that between these two classes a struggle 
must go on, until the working class, through the 
seizure of the instruments of production and dis- 
tribution, the abolition of the capitahst state, and 
the establishment of the dictatorship of the prole- 
tariat, creates a Socialist system. Revolutionary 
Sociahsts do not beheve that they can be voted into 



298 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

power. They struggle for the conquest of power by 
the revolutionary proletariat. Then comes the tran- 
sition period from CapitaUsm to Socialism, of which 
Marx speaks in his Critique of the Gotha Program, 
when he says: ''Between the capitaHstic society and 
the communistic, lies the period of the revolutionary 
transformation of the one into the other. This 
corresponds to a political transition period, in which 
the state cannot be anything else but the dictator- 
ship of the proletariat." 

Marx and Engels clearly explain the function of 
the Socialist movement. It is the "moderate So- 
cialists" through intellectual gymnastics, evasions, 
misquotations and the tearing of sentences and 
phrases from their context, who make Marx and 
Engels sponsors for their perverted version of 
Socialism. 



PEOBLEMS OF AMERICAN SOCIALISM 

At the present moment, the Sociahst Party of 
America is agitated by several cross-currents, some 
local in their character, and some a reflex of cleav- 
ages within the European Socialist movements. 
Many see in this internal dissension merely an unim- 
portant difference of opinion, or at most, dissatisfac- 
tion with the control of the party, and the desire to 
replace those who have misused it with better men. 

We, however, maintain that there is a fundamental 
distinction in views concerning party policies and 
tactics. And we believe that this difference is so 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 299 

vast that from our standpoint a radical change in 
party pohcies and tactics is necessary. 

This essential task is being shirked by our party 
leaders and officials generally. 

Already there is formidable industrial unrest, a 
seething ferment of discontent, evidences by inartic- 
ulate rumblings which presage striking occurrences. 
The transformation of industry from a war to a 
peace basis has thoroughly disorganized the eco- 
nomic structure. Thousands upon thousands of 
workers are being thrown out of work. Demobihzed 
sailors and soldiers find themselves a drug upon the 
labor market, unless they act as scabs and strike- 
breakers. Skilled mechanics, fighting desperately to 
maintain their war-wage and their industrial status, 
are forced to strike. Women, who during the war 
had been welcomed into industries hitherto closed 
to them, are struggling to keep their jobs. And to 
cap the climax, the capitalists, through their Cham- 
bers of Commerce and their Merchants and Manu- 
facturers' Associations, have resolved to take ad- 
vantage of the situation to break down even the in- 
adequate organizations labor has built up through 
generations of painful struggle. 

The temper of the workers and soldiers, after the 
sacrifices they have made in the war, is such that 
they will not endure the reactionary labor conditions 
so openly advocated by the master class. A series 
of labor struggles is bound to follow — indeed, is 
beginning now. Shall the Socialist Party continue 
to feed the workers with social reform legislation at 



300 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

this critical period? Shall it approach the whole 
question from the standpoint of votes and the 
election of representatives to the legislatures? Shall 
it emphasize the consumers' point of view, when 
Socialist principles teach that the worker is robbed 
at the point of production? Shall it talk about the 
Cost of Living and Taxation when it should be ex- 
plaining how the worker is robbed at his job? 

There are many signs of the awakening of labor. 
Strikes are developing which verge on revolutionary 
action; the trade unions are organizing a Labor Party, 
in an effort to conserve what they have won and wrest 
new concessions from the master class. The organi- 
zation of the Labor Party is an inmaature expression 
of a new spirit in the Labor movement; but a Labor 
Party is not the instrument for the emancipation 
of the working class; its policy would be in general 
what is now the official pohcy of the Socialist Party 
— reforming Capitalism on the basis of the bourgeois 
state. Laborism is as much a danger to the revolu- 
tionary proletariat as ' ' moderate ' ' Socialism ; neither 
is an instrument for the conquest of power. 

CAPITALIST IMPERIALISM 

Imperialism is the final stage of Capitalism, in 
which the accumulated capital or surplus of a nation 
is too great to be reinvested in the home market. 
The increased productivity of the working class, due 
to improved machinery and efficiency methods, and 
the mere subsistence wage which permits the worker 
to buy back only a small portion of what he pro- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 301 

duces, causes an ever-increasing accumulation of 
commodities, which in turn become capital and must 
be invested in further production. When Capitalism 
has reached the stage in which it imports raw ma- 
terials from undeveloped countries and exports 
them again in the shape of manufactured products, 
it has reached its highest development. 

This process is universal. Foreign markets, 
spheres of influence and protectorates, under the 
intensive development of capitalist industry and 
finance in turn become highly developed. They, 
too, seek for markets. National capitalist control, 
to save itself from ruin, breaks its national bonds 
and emerges full-grown as a capitalist League of 
Nations, with international armies and navies to 
maintain its supremacy. 

The United States no longer holds itself aloof, 
isolated and provincial. It is reaching out for new 
markets, new zones of influence, new protectorates. 

The capitahst class of America is using organized 
labor for its imperialistic purposes. We may soon 
expect the capitalist class, in true Bismarckian 
fashion, to grant factory laws, old-age pensions, 
unemployment insurance, sick benefits, and the 
whole litter of bourgeois reforms, so that the w^orkers 
may be kept fit to produce the greatest profits at the 
greatest speed. 

DANGERS TO AMERICAN SOCIALISM 

There is danger that the SociaHst Party of America 
might make use of these purely bourgeois reforms to 



302 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

attract the workers' votes, by claiming that they 
are victories for Sociahsm, and that they have been 
won by Sociahst poHtical action; when, as a matter 
of fact, the object of these master class measures is 
to prevent the growing class-consciousness of the 
workers, and to divert them from their revolutionary 
aim. By agitating for these reforms, therefore, the 
Socialist Party would be playing into the hands of 
the American imperialists. 

On the basis of the class struggle, then, the So- 
cialist Party of America must reorganize itself, must 
prepare to come to grips with the master class during 
the difficult period of capitalist readjustment now 
going on. This it can do only by teaching the 
working class the truth about present-day condi- 
tions; it must preach revolutionary industrial 
unionism, and urge all the workers to organize into 
industrial unions, the only form of labor organiza- 
tion which can cope with the power of great modern 
aggregations of capital. It must carry on its po- 
litical campaigns, not merely as a means of electing 
officials to political office, as in the past, but as a 
year-round educational campaign to arouse the 
workers to class-conscious economic and political 
action, and to keep alive the burning ideal of revolu- 
tion in the hearts of the people. 

POLITICAL ACTION 

We assert with Mai-x that 'Hhe class struggle is 
essentially a political struggle," and we can only 



TllH SOCIAL INTKRPRKTATION OF IIISTOliV 303 

accept his own oft-repeated interpretation of tliat 
phrase. The class struggle, whether it manifest it- 
self on the industrial field or in the direct struggle for 
governmental control, is essentially a struggle for 
the capture and destruction of the capitalist state. 
This is a pohtical act. In this broader view of the 
term "political," Marx includes revolutionary in- 
dustrial action. In other words, the objective of 
Socialist industrial action is ''political," in the sense 
that it aims to undermine the bourgeois state, which 
"is nothing less than a machine for the oppression 
of one class by another and that no less so in a 
democratic republic than under a monarchy." 

Political action is also and more generally used to 
refer to participation in election campaigns for the 
immediate purpose of winning legislative seats. In 
this sense, too, we urge the use of political action as 
a revolutionary weapon. 

But both in the nature and the purpose of this 
form of political action, revolutionary SociaHsm and 
"moderate Socialism" are completely at odds. 

Political action, revolutionary and emphasizing 
the implacable character of the class struggle, is a 
valuable means of propaganda. It must at all times 
struggle to arouse the revolutionary mass action of 
the proletariat — its use is both agitational and ob- 
structive. It must on all issues wage war upon 
Capitalism and the state. Revolutionary Socialism 
uses the forum of parliament for agitation; but it 
does not intend to and cannot use the bourgeois 

state as a means of introducing Sociahsm: this 
20 



304 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

bourgeois state must be destroyed by the mass action 
of the revolutionary proletariat. The proletarian 
dictatorship in the form of a Soviet state is the im- 
mediate objective of the class struggle. 

Marx declared that ''the working class cannot 
simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery 
and wield it for its own purposes." This machinery 
must be destroyed. But ''moderate SociaUsm" 
makes the state the center of its action. 

This attitude towards the state divides the Anar- 
chist (anarcho-syndicahst), the "moderate Sociahst" 
and the revolutionary Socialist. Eager to abolish the 
state (which is the ultimate purpose of revolutionary 
Socialism), the Anarchist and Anarcho-Syndicalist 
fail to realize that a state is necessary in the transi- 
tion period from Capitalism to SociaHsm; the 
"moderate Socialist" proposes to use the bourgeois 
state with its fraudulent democracy, its illusory 
theory of "unity of all the classes," its standing 
army, police and bureaucracy oppressing and baffling 
the masses; the revolutionary Sociahst maintains 
that the bourgeois state must be completely de- 
stroyed, and proposes the organization of a new 
state — the state of the organized producers — of the 
Federated So\^ets — on the basis of which alone can 
Socialism be introduced. 

Industrial Unionism, the organization of the pro- 
letariat in accordance with the integration of indus- 
try and for the overthrow of Capitalism, is a neces- 
sary phase of revolutionary Socialist agitation. 
Potentially, industrial unionism constructs the basis 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 305 

and develops the ideology of the industrial state of 
Socialism ; but industrial unionism alone cannot per- 
form the revolutionary act of seizure of the power of 
the state, since under the conditions of Capitalism 
it is impossible to organize the whole working class, 
or an overwhelming majority, into industrial unions. 
It is the task of a revolutionary Socialist party to 
direct the struggles of the proletariat and provide a 
program for the culminating crisis. Its propaganda 
must be so directed that w^hen this crisis comes, the 
workers will be prepared to accept a program of the 
following character: 

(a) The organization of Workmen's Councils; 
recognition of, and propaganda for, these mass or- 
ganizations of the working class as instruments in 
the immediate struggle, as the form of expression of 
the class struggle, and as the instruments for the 
seizure of the power of the state and the basis of the 
new proletarian state of the organized producers 
and the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

(b) Workmen's control of industry, to be exer- 
cised by the industrial organizations (industrial 
unions or Soviets) of the workers and the industrial 
vote, as against goverrmient ownership or state con- 
trol of industry. 

(c) Repudiation of all national debts— with pro- 
visions to safeguard small investors. 

(d) Expropriation of the banks — a preliminary 
measure for the complete expropriation of capital. 

(e) Expropriation of the railways, and the large 
(trust) organizations of capital — no compensation 



306 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

to be paid, as ''buj^ng-out" the capitalists would 
insure a continuance of the exploitation of the work- 
ers; provision, however, to be made during the tran- 
sition period for the protection of small owners of 
stock. 

(f) The socialization of foreign trade. 

These are not the ''immediate demands" com- 
prised in the social reform planks now in the platform 
of our party; they are not a comproniise with the 
capitalist state, but imply a revolutionary struggle 
against that state and against capitahsm, the con- 
quest of power by the proletariat through revolu- 
tionary mass action. They imply the new Soviet 
state of the organized producers, the dictatorship of 
the proletariat; they are preliminary revolutionary 
measures for the expropriation of capital and the 
introduction of communist Socialism. 

PROGRAM 

1. We stand for a uniform declaration of principles 
in all party platforms both local and national and the 
abolition of all social reform planks now contained in 
them. 

2. The party must teach, propagate and agitate 
exclusively for the overthrow of Capitalism, and the 
establishment of Sociahsm through a Proletarian 
Dictatorship. 

3. The SociaUst candidates elected to office shall 
adhere strictly to the above pro\dsions. 

4. Reahzing that a poUtical party cannot reor- 
ganize and reconstruct the industrial organizations 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 307 

of the working class, and that that is the task of tlie 
economic organizations themselves, we demand that 
the party assist this process of reorganization by a 
propaganda for revolutionary industrial unionism 
as part of its general activities. We believe it is the 
mission of the Socialist movement to encourage and 
assist the proletariat to adopt newer and more effec- 
tive forms of organization and to stir it into newer 
and more revolutionary modes of action. 

5. We demand that the official party press be party 
owned and controlled. 

6. We demand that officially recognized educa- 
tional institutions be party owned and controlled. 

7. We demand that the party discard its obsolete 
literature and publish new literature in keeping with 
the policies and tactics above mentioned. 

8. We demand that the National Executive Com- 
mittee call an immediate emergency national con- 
vention for the purpose of formulating party poHcics 
and tactics to meet the present crisis. 

9. We demand that the Socialist Party repudiate 
the Berne Congress or any other conference engin- 
eered by "moderate Socialists" and social patriots, 

10. We demand that the Socialist Party shall 
elect delegates to the International Congress pro- 
posed by the Communist Party of Russia (Bolshe- 
viki) ; that our party shall participate only in a new 
International with which are affiliated the Commun- 
ist Party of Russia (Bolsheviki), the Communist 
Labor Party of Germany (Spartacus), and all other 
Left Wing parties and groups. 



APPENDIX III 

Manifestos of the Third International and Statements 
BY Lenin, Trotsky and Others 

Note. — These documents are collected here not only for their 
historic value, but also because they afford an insight into the 
minds of men who have been acclaimed intellectual giants to 
whom has been revealed the key controlling historic processes. 

That these men are but fanatical slaves of a false conception 
of history is patent from the naive and wholly unfulfilled pre- 
dictions which they put forth with such pretense to masterful 
understanding. 

— Author, 

A LETTER TO AMERICAN WORKINGMEN FROM THE 
SOCIALIST SOVIET REPUBLIC OF RUSSIA 

By N. Lenin 

Moscow, August 20, 1918. 

Comrades : A Russian Bolshevik who participated 
in the Revolution of 1905 and for many years after- 
wards Hved in your country has offered to transmit 
this letter to you. I have grasped this opportunity 
joyfully, for the revolutionary proletariat of America 
— in so far as it is the enemy of American imperialism 
— is destined to perform an important task at this 
time. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 309 

The history of modern civilized America opens — Z^" 
with one of those really revolutionary wars of libera- 
tion of which there have been so few compared with 
the enormous number of wars of conquest that were 
caused, like the present imperiahstic war, by squab- 
bles among kings, landholders and capitahsts over 
the division of ill-gotten lands and profits. It was 
a war of the American people against the English 
who despoiled America of its resources and held in 
colonial subjection, just as their ''civilized" descend- 
ants are draining the lifeblood of hundreds of mil- 
lions of human beings in India, Egypt and all corners 
and ends of the world to keep them in subjection. 

Since that war 150 years have passed. Bourgeois 
civilization has born its most luxuriant fruit. By 
developing the productive forces of organized human 
labor, by utilizing machines and all the wonders of 
technique, America has taken the first place among 
free and civihzed nations. But at the same time 
America, like a few other nations, has become charac- 
teristic for the depth of the abyss that divides a hand- 
ful of brutal miUionaires who are stagnating in a mire 
of luxury, and millions of laboring starving men and 
women who are always staring want in the face. 

Four years of imperialistic slaughter have left 
their trace. Irrefutably and clearly events have 
shown to the people that both imperialistic groups, 
the English as well as the German, have been playing 
false. The four years of war have shown in their 
effects the great law of capitalism in all wars; that 
he who is richest and mightiest profits the most, 



310 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

takes the greatest share of the spoils, while he who is 
w^eakest is exploited, martyred, oppressed and out- 
raged to the utmost. 

In the number of its colonial possessions, English 
imperialism has always been more powerful than any 
of the other countries. England has lost not a span 
of its "acquired" land. On the other hand it has 
acquired control of all German colonies in Africa, 
has occupied Mesopotamia and Palestine. 

German imperialism was stronger because of the 
wonderful organization and ruthless discipline of 
"its" armies, but as far as colonies are concerned, 
is much weaker than its opponent. It has now lost 
all of its colonies, but has robbed half of Europe and 
throttled most of the small countries and weaker 
peoples. What a high conception of "liberation" 
on either side! How well they have defended their 
fatherlands, these "gentlemen" of both groups, the 
Anglo-French and the German capitalists together 
with their lackeys, the Social-Patriots. 

American plutocrats are wealthier than those of 
any other country partly because they are geo- 
graphically more favorably situated. They have 
made the greatest profits. They have made all, 
even the weakest countries, their debtors. They have 
amassed gigantic fortunes during the war. And 
every dollar is stained with the blood that was shed 
by millions of murdered and crippled men, shed in 
the high, honorable and holy war of freedom. 

Had the Anglo-French and American bourgeoisie 
accepted the Soviet invitation to participate in peace 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 311 

negotiations at Brcst-Litovsk, instead of leaving 
Russia to the mercy of brutal Germany a just peace 
without annexations and indemnities, a peace based 
upon complete equality could have been forced upon 
Germany, and millions of lives might have been 
saved. Because they hoped to re-establish tke East- 
ern Front by once more drawing us into the whirl- 
pool of warfare, they refused to attend peace negoti- 
ations and gave Germany a free hand to cram its 
shameful terms down the throat of the Russian 
people. It lay in the power of the Allied countries 
to make the Brest-Litovsk negotiations the fore- 
runner of a general peace. It ill becomes them to 
throw the blame for the Russo-German peace upon 
our shoulders! 

The workers of the whole world, in whatever 
country they may live, rejoice with us and sym- 
pathize with us, applaud us for having burst the iron 
ring of imperialistic agreements and treaties, for 
having dreaded no sacrifice, however great, to free 
ourselves, for having established ourselves as a so- 
cialist republic, even so rent asunder and plundered 
by German imperialists, for having raised the banner 
of peace, the banner of Socialism over the world. 
What wonder that we are hated by the capitalist 
class the world over. But this hatred of imperialism 
and the sympathy of the class-conscious workers of 
all countries give us assurance of the righteousness 
of our cause. 

He is no Sociahst who cannot understand that one 
cannot and must not hesitate to bring even that 



312 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

greatest of sacrifice, the sacrifice of territory, that 
one must be ready to accept even miUtary defeat 
at the hands of imperiahsm in the interests of vic- 
tory over the bourgeoisie, in the interests of a trans- 
fer of power to the working-class. For the sake of 
*Hheir" cause, that is for the conquest of world- 
power, the imperialists of England and Germany 
have not hesitated to ruin a whole row of nations, 
from Belgium and Servia to Palestine and Meso- 
potamia. Shall we then hesitate to act in the name 
of the liberation of the workers of the world from the 
yoke of capitalism, in the name of a general honor- 
able peace; shall we wait until we can find a way 
that entails no sacrifice; shall we be afraid to begin 
the fight until an easy victory is assured; shall we 
place the integrity and safety of this ''fatherland" 
created by the bourgeoisie over the interests of the 
international socialist revolution? 

We have been attacked for coming to terms with 
German militarism. Is there no difference between 
a pact entered upon by Socialists and a bourgeoisie 
(native or foreign) against the working class, against 
labor, and an agreement that is made between a 
working class that has overthrown its own bour- 
geoisie and a bourgeoisie of one side against a bour- 
geoisie of another nationahty for the protection of 
the proletariat? Shall we not exploit the antagonism 
that exists between the various groups of the bour- 
geoisie? In reahty every European understands this 
difference, and the American people, as I will pres- 
ently show, have had a very similar experience 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 313 

in its own history. There are agreements and 
agreements, fagots et fagots, as the Frenchman 
says. 

When the robber-barons of German imperiahsm 
threw their armies into defenseless, demobiUzed 
Russia in February, 1918, when Russia had staked 
its hopes upon the international solidarity of the 
proletariat before the international revolution had 
completelj^ ripened, I did not hesitate for a moment 
to come to certain agreements with French Mon- 
archists. The French captain Sadoul, who sym- 
pathized in words with the Bolsheviki while in deeds 
he was the faithful servant of French imperiahsm, 
brought the French officer de Lubersac to me. *'I 
am a Monarchist. My only purpose is the over- 
throw of Germany," de Lubersac declared to me. 
"That is self-understood (cela va sans dire)," I re- 
pUed. But this by no means prevented me from 
coming to an understanding with de Lubersac con- 
cerning certain services that French experts in ex- 
plosives were ready to render in order to hold up 
the German advance by the destruction of railroad 
lines. This is an example of the kind of agreement 
that every class-conscious worker must be ready to 
adopt, an agreement in the interest of Socialism. 
We shook hands with the French Monarchists al- 
though we knew that each one of us would rather 
have seen the other hang. But temporarily our in- 
terests were identical. To throw back the rapacious 
advancing German army we made use of the equally 
greedy interests of their opponents, thereby serving 



314 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

the interests of the Russian and the international 
sociaHst revolution. 

In this way we furthered the cause of the working 
class of Russia and of other countries; in this way 
we strengthened the proletariat and weakened the 
bourgeoisie of the world by making use of the usual 
and absolutely legal practice of maneuvering, shift- 
ing and waiting for the moment the rapidly growing 
proletarian revolution in the more highly developed 
nations had ripened. 

Long ago the American people used these tactics 
to the advantage of its revolution. When America 
waged its great war of liberation against the English 
oppressors, it likewise entered into negotiations with 
other oppressors, with the French and the Spaniards 
who at that time owned a considerable portion of 
what is now the United States. In its desperate 
struggle for freedom the American people made 
"agreements" with one group of oppressors against 
the other for the purpose of weakening all oppressors 
and strengthening those who were struggling against 
tyranny. The American people utilized the antag- 
onism that existed between the English and the 
French, at times even fighting side by side with the 
armies of one group of oppressors, the French and 
the Spanish against the others, the English. Thus 
it vanquished first the English and then freed itself 
(partly by purchase) from the dangerous proximity 
of the French and Spanish possessions. 

The great Russian revolutionist Tchernychewski 
once said: '^ Political activity is not as smooth as the 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 315 

pavement of the Nevski Prospect." He is no revolu- 
tionist who would have the revolution of the prole- 
tariat only under the ''condition" that it proceed 
smoothly and in an orderly manner, that guarantees 
against defeat be given beforehand, that the revolu- 
tion go forward along the broad, free, straight path 
to victory, that there shall not be here and there the 
heaviest sacrifices, that we shall not have to lie in 
wait in besieged fortresses, shall not have to climb 
up along the narrowest path, the most impassible, 
winding, dangerous mountain roads. He is no revo- 
lutionist, he has not yet freed himself from the 
pedantry of bourgeois intellectualism, he will fall 
back, again and again, into the camp of the counter 
revolutionary bourgeoisie. 

They are little more than imitators of the bour- 
geoisie, these gentlemen who delight in holding up to 
us the "chaos" of revolution, the ''destruction" of 
industry, the unemployment, the lack of food. Can 
there be anything more hypocritical than such accu- 
sations from people who greeted and supported the 
imperialistic war and made common cause with 
Kerensky when he continued the war? Is not this 
imperialistic war the cause of all our misfortune? 
The revolution that was born by the war must neces- 
sarily go on through the terrible difficulties and suffer- 
ings that war created, through this heritage of de- 
struction and reactionary mass murder. To accuse 
us of "destruction" of industries and "terror" is 
hypocrisy or clumsy pedantry, shows an incapability 
of understanding the most elemental fundamentals 



316 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

of the raging, climatic force of the class struggle, 
called Revolution. 

In words our accusers "recognize" this kind of 
class struggle, in deeds they revert again and again 
to the middle-class utopia of ''class harmony" and 
the mutual ''interdependence" of classes upon one 
another. In reaUty the class struggle in revolu- 
tionary times has always inevitably taken on the 
form of civil war, and civil war is unthinkable with- 
out the worst kind of destruction, without terror 
and limitations of form of democracy in the interests 
of the war. One must be a sickly sentimentalist not 
to be able to see, to understand and appreciate this 
necessity. Only the Tchechov type of the lifeless 
"Man in the Box" can denounce the Revolution for 
this reason instead of throwing himself into the fight 
with the whole vehemence and decision of his soul 
at a moment when history demands that the highest 
problems of humanity be solved by struggle and 
war. 

The best representatives of the American prole- 
tariat — those representatives who have repeatedly 
given expression to their full solidarity with us, the 
Bolsheviki, are the expression of this revolutionary 
tradition in the life of the American people. This 
tradition originated in the war of liberation against 
the English in the 18th and the Civil War in the 
19th century. Industry and commerce in 1870 were 
in a much worse position than in 1860. But where 
can you find an American so pedantic, so absolutely 
idiotic, who would deny the revolutionary and pro- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 317 

gressive significance of the American Civil War of 
18G0-1SG5? 

The representatives of the bourgeoisie understand 
very well that the overthrow of slavery was well 
worth the three years of Civil War, the depth of 
destruction, devastation and terror that were its 
accompaniment. But these same gentlemen and the 
reform socialists who have allowed themselves to be 
cowed by the bourgeoisie and tremble at the thought 
of a revolution, cannot, nay will not, see the 
necessity and righteousness of a civil war in Russia, 
though it is facing a far greater task, the work of 
abolishing capitalist wage slavery and overthrowing 
the rule of the bourgeoisie. 

The American working class will not follow the 
lead of its bourgeoisie. It will go with us against the 
bourgeoisie. The whole history of the American .-— /y 
people gives me this confidence, this conviction. 
I recall with pride the words of one of the best loved 
leaders of the American proletariat, Eugene V. 
Debs, who said in the Appeal to Reason at the end 
of 1915, when it was still a socialist paper, in an 
article entited "Why Should I Fight?" that he 
would rather be shot than vote for war credits to 
support the present criminal and reactionary war, 
that he knows only one war that is sanctified and 
justified from the standpoint of the proletariat: the 
war against the capitalist class, the war for the liber- 
ation of mankind from wage slavery. I am not sur- 
prised that this tearless man was thrown into prison 
by the Amxcrican bourgeoisie. Let them brutalize 



318 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

true internationalists, the real representatives of the 
revolutionary proletariat. The greater the bitterness 
and brutality they sow, the nearer is the day of the 
victorious proletarian revolution. 

We are accused of ha\4ng brought devastation 
upon Russia. Who is it that makes these accusa- 
tions? The train-bearers of the bourgeoisie, of that 
same bourgeoisie that almost completely destroyed 
the culture of Europe, that has dragged the whole 
continent back to barbarism, that has brought 
hunger and destruction to the world. This bour- 
geoisie now demands that we find a different basis 
for our Revolution than that of destruction, that we 
shall not build it up upon the ruins of war, with hu- 
man beings degraded and brutalized by years of 
warfare. 0, how human, how just is this bourgeoisie! 

Its servants charge us with the use of terroristic 
methods. — -Have the English forgotten their 1649, 
the French their 1793? Terror was just and justified 
when it was employed by the bourgeoisie for its own 
purposes against feudal domination. But terror 
becomes criminal when workingmen and poverty- 
stricken peasants dare to use it against the bour- 
geoisie. Terror was just and justified when it was 
used to put one exploiting minority in the place of 
another. But terror becomes horrible and criminal 
when it is used to abolish all exploiting minorities, 
when it is emplo^^ed in the cause of the actual ma- 
jority, in the cause of the proletariat and the semi- 
proletariat, of the working class and the poor 
peasantry. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 319 

The bourgeoisie of international imperialism has 
succeeded in slaughtering 10 millions, in crippling 
20 millions in its war. Should our war, the war of the 
oppressed and the exploited, against oppressers and 
exploiters, cost a half or a whole million victims in 
all countries, the bourgeoisie would still maintain 
that the victims of the world war died a righteous 
death, that those of the civil war were sacrificed for 
a criminal cause. 

But the proletariat, even now, in the midst of the 
horrors of war, is learning the great truth that all 
revolutions teach, the truth that has been handed 
down to us by our best teachers, the founders of 
modern Socialism. From them we have learned that 
a successful revolution is inconceivable unless it 
breaks the resistance of the exploiting class. When 
the workers and the laboring peasants took hold of 
the powers of state, it became our duty to quell the 
resistance of the exploiting class. We are proud that 
we have done it, that we are doing it. We only 
regret that we did not do it, at the beginning, with 
sufficient firmness and decision. 

We realize that the mad resistance of the bour- 
geoisie against the socialist revolution in all coun- 
tries is unavoidable. We know, too, that with the 
development of this revolution this resistance will 
grow. But the proletariat will break down this 
resistance and in the course of its struggle against 
the bourgeoisie the proletariat will finally become 
ripe for victory and power. 

Let the corrupt bourgeois press trumpet every 



320 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

mistake that is made by our Revolution out into the 
world. We are not afraid of our mistakes. The 
beginning of the revolution has not sanctified hu- 
manity. It is not to be expected that the working 
classes who had been exploited and forcibly held 
down by the clutches of want, of ignorance and 
degradation for centuries should conduct its revolu- 
tion without mistakes. The dead body of bourgeois 
society cannot simply be put into a coffin and buried. 
It rots in our midst, poisons the air we breathe, 
pollutes our lives, clings to the new, the fresh, the 
living with a thousand threads and tendrils of old 
customs, of death and decay. 

But for every hundred of our mistakes that are 
heralded into the world by the bourgeoisie and its 
sycophants, there are ten thousand great deeds of 
heroism, greater and more heroic because they seem 
so simple and unpretentious, because they take place 
in the everyday life of the factory districts or in se- 
cluded villages, because they are the deeds of people 
who are not in the habit of proclaiming their every suc- 
cess to the world, who have no opportunity to do so. 

But even if the contrary were true, — I know, of 
course, that this is not so — but even if we had com- 
mitted 10,000 mistakes to every 100 wise and right- 
eous deeds, yes, even then our revolution would be 
great and invincible. And it will go down in the 
history of the world as unconquerable. For the 
first time in the history of the world not the minority, 
not alone the rich and the educated, but the real 
masses, the huge majority of the working class it- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 321 

self, are building up a new world, are deciding the 
most difficult questions of social organization from 
out of their own experience. 

Every mistake that is made in this work, in this 
honestly conscientious co-operation of ten million 
plain workingmen and peasants in the recreation 
of their entire Hves — every such mistake is worth 
thousands and millions of ''faultless" successes of 
the exploiting minority, in outwitting and taking 
advantage of the laboring masses. For only through 
these mistakes can the workers and peasants learn 
to organize their new existence, to get along with- 
out the capitalist class. Only thus will they be able 
to blaze their way, through thousands of hindrances 
to victorious socialism. 

Mistakes are being made by our peasants who, at 
one stroke, in the night from October 25 to October 
26 (Russian Calendar), 1917, did away with all pri- 
vate ownership of land, and are now struggling, 
from month to month, under the greatest difficul- 
ties, to correct their own mistakes, trying to solve 
in practice the most difficult problems of organizing 
a new social state, fighting against profiteers to se- 
cure the possession of the land for the worker in- 
stead of for the speculator, to carry on agricultural 
production under a system of communist farming on 
a large scale. 

Mistakes are being made by our workmen in their 
revolutionary activity, who, in a few short months, 
have placed practically all of the larger factories 
and workers under state ownership, and arc now 



322 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

learning, from day to day, under the greatest diffi- 
culties, to conduct the management of entire indus- 
tries, to reorganize industries already organized, to 
overcome the deadly resistance of laziness and mid- 
dle-class reaction and egotism. Stone upon stone 
they are building the foundation for a new social 
community, the self-discipline of labor, the new 
rule of the labor organizations of the working class 
over their members. 

Mistakes are being made in their revolutionary 
activity by the Soviets which were first created in 
1905 by the gigantic upheaval of the masses. The 
Workmen's and Peasants' Soviets are a new type of 
state, a new highest form of Democracy, a particular 
form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a mode 
of conducting the business of the state without the 
bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie. For the 
first time democracy is placed at the service of the 
masses, of the workers, and ceases to be a democracy 
for the rich, as it is, in the last analysis, in all capital- 
ist, yes, in all democratic republics. For the first 
time the masses of the people, in a nation of hun- 
dreds of millions, are fulfilling the task of realizing 
the dictatorship of the proletariat and the semi- 
proletariat, without which sociahsm is not to be 
thought of. 

Let incurable pedants, crammed full of bourgeois 
democratic and parliamentary prejudices, shake 
their heads gravely over our Soviets, let them de- 
plore the fact that we have no direct elections. 
These people have forgotten nothing, have learned 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 323 

nothing in the great upheaval of 1914-1918. The 
combination of the dictatorship of the proletariat 
with the new democracy of the proletariat, of civil 
war with the widest application of the masses to 
political problems, such a combination cannot be 
achieved in a day, cannot be forced into the battered 
forms of formal parliamentary democratism. In the 
Soviet Republic there arises before us a new world, 
the world of Socialism. Such a world cannot be 
materialized as if by magic, complete in every detail, 
as Minerva sprang from Jupiter's head. 

While the old bourgeoisie democratic constitu- 
tions, for instance, proclaimed formal equality and 
the right of free assemblage, the constitution of the 
Soviet Republic repudiates the hypocrisy'' of a formal 
equality of all human beings. When the bourgeoisie 
republicans overturned feudal thrones, they did not 
recognize the rules of formal equality of monarchists. 
Since we here are concerned with the task of over- 
throwing the bourgeoisie, only fools or traitors will 
insist on the formal equality of the bourgeoisie. The 
right of free assemblage is not worth an iota to the 
workman and to the peasant when all better meeting 
places are in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Our 
Soviets have taken over all usable buildings in the 
cities and towns out of the hands of the rich and 
have placed them at the disposal of the workmen 
and peasants for meeting and organization purposes. 
That is how our right of assemblage looks — for the 
workers. That is the meaning and content of our 
Soviet, of our socialist constitution. 



324 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

And for this reason we are all firmly convinced 
that the Soviet Republic, whatever misfortune may 
still lie in store for it, is unconquerable. 

It is unconquerable because every blow that comes 
from the powers of madly raging imperiahsm, every 
new attack by the international bourgeoisie will 
bring new, and hitherto unaffected strata of work- 
ingmen and peasants into the fight, will educate 
them at the cost of the greatest sacrifice, making 
them hard as steel, awakening a new heroism in the 
masses. 

We know that it may take a long time before help 
can come from you, comrades, American Working- 
men, for the development of the revolution in the 
different countries proceeds along various paths, with 
varying rapidity (how could it be otherwise!). We 
know full well that the outbreak of the European 
proletarian revolution may take many weeks to 
come, quickly as it is ripening in these days. We 
are counting on the inevitability of the international 
revolution. But that does not mean that we count 
upon its coming at some definite, nearby date. We 
have experienced two great revolutions in our own 
country, that of 1905 and that of 1917, and we know 
that revolutions cannot come either at a word of 
command or according to prearranged plans. We 
know that circumstances alone have pushed us, the 
proletariat of Russia, forward, that we have reached 
this new state in the social life of the world not be- 
cause of our superiority but because of the peculiarly 
reactionary character of Russia. But until the out- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 325 

break of the international revolution, revolutions 
in individual countries may still meet with a number 
of serious setbacks and overthrows. 

And yet we are certain that we are invincible, for 
if humanity will not emerge from this imperialistic 
massacre broken in spirit, it will triumph. Ours was 
the first country to break the chains of imperialistic 
warfare. We broke them with the greatest sacrifice, 
but they are broken. We stand outside of imperi- 
alistic duties and considerations, we have raised the 
banner of the fight for the complete overthrow of 
imperialism for the world. 

We are in a beleaguered fortress, so long as no 
other international socialist revolution comes to our 
assistance with its armies. But these armies exist, 
they are stronger than ours, they grow, they strive, 
they become more invincible the longer imperialism 
with its brutalities continues. Workingmen the 
world over are breaking with their betrayers, with 
their Gompers and their Scheidemanns. Inevitably 
labor is approaching communistic Bolshevistic tac- 
tics, is preparing for the proletarian revolution that 
alone is capable of preserving culture and humanity 
from destruction. 

We are invincible, for invincible is the Proletarian 
Revolution. 



MESSAGE FROM NIKOLAI LENIN TO 
WORKERS OF GREAT BRITAIN 

(From Chicago Socialist, July 10, 1920) 

Note.— When the delegates of the British Trade Unions, the 
British Labor Party and the British Independent Labor Party re- 
turned home after their recent visit to Soviet Russia, they carried 
with them a message from Nikolai Lenin to the workers of Great 
Britain. This message was published in the British Socialist press 
and through these pubhcations comes to the United States. With a 
few changes the message could just as appropriately have been 
addressed to the workers of the United States. It is as follows: 

Comrades: 

First of all permit me to thank you for sending your Delega- 
tion with the object of acquainting itself with Soviet Russia. 

When your delegation proposed to me to despatch through its 
intermediary a letter to the British Workers and perhaps also 
a proposal to the British Government, I answered that I grate- 
fully accepted the first suggestion but that to the Government I 
must address myself not through the Labor delegation but di- 
rectly on behalf of our Government, through Comrade Tchitch- 
erine. 

We have in this way addressed ourselves many times to the 
British Government with the most formal and solemn proposal 
to start peace negotiations. 

These proposals are still being made miintermittently by 
Comrade Litvinoff and Comrade Krassin and all our other 
representatives. 

The British Government consistently does not accept our 
proposals. 

It is therefore not siu-prising that with the Delegation of 
British Workers I should want to speak solely as with a delega- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 327 

tion of workers, and not in my capacity as a representative of 
the Government of Soviet Russia, but in the capacity of an 
ordinary Communist. 

I was not surprised to find ihat the viewpoint of some of the 
members of your Delegation docs not coincide with that of the 
working class but coincides with the viewpoint of the bour- 
geoisie, the class of exploiters. 

This is because in all capitalist countries the imperialist war 
has again exposed the inveterate abscess, namely, the desertion 
of the majority of parliamentary and trade union leaders of the 
workers to the camp of the bourgeoisie. 

Under the oblique pretense of the "defense of the country" 
actually defending the spoliatory interests of one of the two 
groups of the world bandits, the Anglo-French-American or the 
German group, they entered into an alliance with the bour- 
geoisie against the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat; 
they covered up this treason with sentimental shopkeepers re- 
formist and pacifist phrases about peaceful evolution, about con- 
stitutional measures, about democracy, etc. 

This was the case in all countries. It is not surprising that 
this very tendency existing in England has found expression in 
the composition of your Delegation. 

Shaw and Guest, members of your Delegation, were obvi- 
ously surprised and hurt by my statement that England, not- 
withstanding the declarations of her Government, continues 
her intervention, is carrying on a war against us, helping Wrangel 
in the Crimea and the White Guards in Poland. 

And they asked me whether I have proofs to this effect, 
whether I can state how many trains with munitions were de- 
livered by England to Poland, etc. 

I replied that for the purpose of getting access to the secret 
agreements of the British Government it is necessary to over- 
throw it by revolutionary means and to lay hold of all documents 
of its foreign poHcy as was done by us in 1917. 

Every educated person, everyone genuinely interested in 
politics, knew even before the revolution that the Czar had secret 
treaties with the robber goveriuncuits of England, France, the 



328 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

United States, Italy, Japan, for the partition of booty about 
Constantinople, Galicia, Armenia, Syria, Mesopotamia, etc. 

Only liars and hypocrites (excepting, of course, quite ignorant 
and illiterate people) could deny this or pretend not to know it. 

But without revolution we would never be able to get the 
secret documents of the robber governments of the capitalist 
class. 

Those leaders or representatives of the British proletariat — 
whether they be parliamentarians, trade unionists, journalists 
or other people — who pretend that they are ignorant of the 
existence of secret treaties of England, France, the United States, 
Italy, Japan, and Poland, for the plundering of other countries 
for partition of booty and who do not carry on a revolutionary 
struggle for the exposure of such treaties show thereby need- 
lessly once again that they are faithful servants of the capitalists. 

We knew this long ago, we are exposing this both here and in 
all other countries of the world. 

The visit to Russia of a delegation of British workers will 
accelerate the exposure of such leaders in England as well. 

My above-mentioned interview with members of your Dele- 
gation took place on May 26th. 

A day later we received radios, saying that Bonar Law con- 
ceded in the British Parhament that miUtary help was rendered 
to Poland in October "for the defense against Russia" (of course, 
only for defense, only in October! In England there are still 
"influential labor leaders" helping the capitahsts to deceive 
the workers!), while the periodical, The New Statesman, one 
of the most moderate of all moderate middle-class newspapers 
or periodicals, wrote about the new tanks being shipped from 
England to Poland, more powerful than those used during the 
war against the Germans. 

Is it possible then not to laugh at those "leaders" of the 
British workers who, with an air of hurt iimocence, are asking 
what "proofs" there are that England is making war on Russia 
and is helping Poland and the White Guards in Crimea? 

Members of the Delegation have asked me what I think to 
be of greater importance, whether the formation in England of 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 329 

a consistent revolutionary communist party, or immediate help 
of the working masses in England to the cause of peace with 
Russia. 

I replied that the answer to this question depends upon the 
convictions of those who give the answer. 

Genuine partisans of the liberation of the workers from the 
yoke of capital camiot possibly oppose the foundation of a com- 
munist party that alone is able to educate the working masses, 
not after the bourgeois and shopkeeper fashion, that alone is 
able actually to expose, deride, and disgrace "leaders" who are 
capable of doubting whether England is helping Poland, etc. 

It need not be apprehended that there will be in England too 
many communists, as even a small communist party is not 
existent there. 

But if anyone persists still in intellectual slavery under the 
bourgeoisie and continues to share the middle-class prejudice 
concerning "democracy" (bourgeois democracy!), pacifism, 
etc., then, of course, such people could only injure the proletariat 
to an even greater extent should it occur to them to call them- 
selves communists and to join the Third International. 

Such people are not capable of anything except the adoption 
of "sweetened resolutions" against intervention which are 
made up merely of shopkeepers' phrases. 

In a certain respect these resolutions are useful inasmuch as 
the "old leaders" (the partisans of bourgeois democracy, peace- 
ful methods, etc., etc.) will make themselves ridiculous in the 
eyes of the masses, exposing themselves the sooner the more 
resolutions they pass, w'hich, being empty and non-committal, 
are unattended by revolutionary action. 

To everyone his due; let the communists work directly through 
their party for the enlightenment of the revolutionary conscious- 
ness of the workers. 

Let those who supported the "defense of the country" during 
the imperialistic war for the partition of the world, who sup- 
ported the "defense" of the secret treat)' of English capitalists 
with the Czar for the plundering of Turkey, let those who "are 
ignorant" of the help to Poland and the White Guards in Russia 



330 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

rendered by Great Britain, let them quicker bring up to a ludi- 
crous figure the number of their "pacifist resolutions." The 
sooner they will share the fate of Kerensky, the Mensheviks and 
Social-Revolutionists in Russia. 

Some of the members of your delegation have asked me with 
surprise concerning red terror, about the lack of the freedom of 
the press, about the lack of freedom of assembly, about our 
persecution of Mensheviks and Menshevik workers, etc. 

I replied that the real culprits of the terror are the imperialists 
of England and her "Alhes," who have been and are conducting 
white terror in Finland and Hungary, in India and Ireland, who 
have been and are supporting Yudenitch, Kolchak, Denikin, 
Pilsudsky, and Wrangel. 

Our red terror is a defense of the working class against the 
exploiters; it is the suppression of the resistance of the exploiters 
with whom the Social-Revolutionists, the Mensheviks, and an 
insignificant number of Menshevik workers align themselves. 

The freedom of the press and assembly in a bourgeois democ- 
racy is tantamount to the freedom of the well-to-do to plot 
against the working people. 

It means freedom of bribing and bujang up newspapers by the 
capitalists. I have so often explained this in the press that it 
was not very entertaining to me to repeat myself. 

However, two days after my interview with your delegates 
the newspapers pubhshed a despatch saying that in addition to 
the arrests of Monatte and Loriot in France, Sylvia Pankliurst 
has been arrested in England. 

This is the best answer of the British Government to the 
question which the non-communist "leaders" of British workers, 
captivated by bourgeois prejudices, are even afraid to ask, 
namely the question, against which class is the terror directed. 

Whether against the oppressed and exploited, or against the 
oppressors and exploiters; whether it is a question of affording 
f freedom" to the capitalist to plunder, defraud, stupefy the 
working people, or whether the working people are to be "free" 
from the yoke of capitalists, speculators, property holders. 

Comrade Sjdvia Pankhurst is the representative of the in- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 331 

terests of hundreds of millions of people who are oppressed by 
British and other capitalists and it is on this account that she 
becomes an object of the white terror and is deprived of freedom. 

The same "leaders" of workers who are conducting a non- 
communist policy are ninety-nine per cent representatives of 
the bourgeoisie, of its deceit, of its prejudices. 

In conclusion, I once more thank you, comrades, for sending 
us your delegation. 

The fact of its getting acquainted with Soviet Russia, not- 
withstanding the hostility of many of them towards the 
Soviet system and the dictatorship of the proletariat, notwith- 
standing the fact that it is to an extraordinary extent in the 
captivity of bourgeois prejudices, will unavoidably result in 
accelerating the failure of capitalism of the whole world. 

Nikolai Lenin. 

Moscow, May SO, 1920. 



TROTZKY'S SPEECH TO THE PETROGRAD 

SOVIET 

(From N. Y. Call, April 18, 1919) 

[Little's Living Age, for April, 1919, carries an 
address delivered by Trotzky to the Petrograd 
Soviet. Here is presented to American readers a 
picture of the struggle of the Soviet republic of 
Russia to preserve the revolution. It is quite differ- 
ent from the usual run of ''news" coming from that 
country.] 

Comrades: 

Two months and a half ago I made a speech here to the Petro- 
grad Soviet and the Congress of Soviets of the Northern Terri- 
tory. It was just after we had surrendered Siberia to the Czecho- 
slovaks and the White Guards, and a few days before we sur- 
rendered Kazan, one of the saddest moments in the history of 
our young Soviet repubUc, that I came to you from Moscow, 
where it was decided, at a meeting of the Soviet of the People's 
Commissioners, and at party meetings, at a time of danger — 
grave danger to the So\act repubUc — to return here where this 
repubUc was bom, to return to Red Petrograd and say to the 
Petrograd workmen, to the Petrograd Soviet, "The threatening 
hour of trial has come, and we await support from you." I 
remember, and you all remember, that the Petrograd Soviet 
then unanimously, with true, inmost enthusiasm, which bore 
witness to its determination, responded to the appeal, and sent 
hundreds, many hundreds, of the best sons of Petrograd 's 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 333 

working class to the front. I was on the Eastern front with them 
during tliat month when we were trying to take Kazan, and I 
watched your representative workingmen, the Comi'ades from 
Petrograd. 

If we took Kazan, if we took Simbirsk, if we cleared the Volga, 
it was, in an enormous degree, thanks to those workers whom wc 
sent from here. They created our army there under the enemy's 
fire. We only sent the raw material there, young men, uncon- 
solidated forces. The hving soul had to be poured into them. 
They had to be welded together, they had to be given self- 
confidence, a united, centrahzed command had to be created. 
The personnel for the command had to be attracted; and, 
where poUtical control was needed over them, authoritative 
workers were wanted who would be a guaranty to our soldiers 
that those in command would not deceive them or bring them 
into trouble. All this was done by representatives of the 
Petrograd working-class. You took Kazan, you took Sim- 
birsk, you cleared the Volga, you, the Petrograd Soviet of 
Workmen's and Red Army Deputies. I told you then that, in 
our War Department, there was no doubt that we could create a 
strong, forcible, compact army, and a strong navy, perhaps not 
numerous for the time, while we are cut short in what we can 
do at sea, but a navy which can be developed when inter- 
national conditions make that possible, and international con- 
ditions are changing every day in our favor. We have created 
a river flotilla on the Volga, where, as I remarked at our meet- 
ing here yesterday, our sailors have fought, and are fighting, 
wath incomparable heroism. Some vessels of the Baltic fleet, of 
course only the smaller fighting units, have been transferred 
there with first-class hardened, revolutionaiy crews. There the 
White Guards are retreating down the Volga and on the Kama, 
and have surrendered the mouth of the Byelaya. In these 
battles perished, as I have mentioned, one of the best repre- 
sentatives of the Baltic fleet, Nikolai Grigoryevich Mar kin, the 
fomader of our Volga flotilla, second in command to Conu'ade 
Raskohiikov. 

We created a Red air-fleet. Tliis is the most delicate form of 



334 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

armament : among the airmen were many elements demoralized 
by the old Grand Ducal regime, and the profession itself was very 
aristocratic. The airmen do not hve as a corporate body (artel), 
but as indixdduals, and many of them look down on the army. 
We were told: "You will not have an air-fleet; they will fly 
over to the enemy," There were cases in which they flew over 
with their machines; there were cases here on the northern 
front where airmen deserters were caught, and, of course, shot, 
but I must say that these were isolated cases ; they might create 
a false impression among you as to the actual feeUng in our Red 
air-fleet. We had many heroes in ovu" Red army, among the 
infantry and cavalry, and among the sailors, but if you obliged 
me to award the palm of eminence to anyone, I should say that 
the airmen held the first place in the battles around Kazan. 
They knew no danger, and they were engaged there imder the 
most incredible conditions. They undertook reconnaissances of 
the utmost importance in storm and by night; they estabUshed 
a haison service and terrorized the enemy by ruthless bombard- 
ment. 

There fell into our hands the diary of an intelligent White- 
Guard woman, who Uved through all this month of strife in 
Kazan, and there on every page the work of the Red bandits of 
the air — that means our airmen — is spoken of with horror and 
hatred. And now they have been spread out on all the fronts: 
on the Southern front against the Cossacks our Red airmen will 
shortly display their strength. I wanted to tell you that our Red 
army is spreading itself in all directions, upward as well. We 
shall establish a durable, centralized, strong apparatus, morally 
sound at heart, because the Red army is bound together by that 
unity of feeling which the revolutionary representatives of the 
Petrograd and Moscow proletariat have brought into it. Liter- 
ally, regiments who came from the villages and were but Mttle 
educated or enlightened have, in the course of two or three weeks, 
been morally regenerated under the influence of leading work- 
men. I remember one group. The picture just now came up 
before my ej^es. It was one of the saddest and most tragic 
nights before Kazan, when raw young forces retired in a panic. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 335 

Tliat was in August, in the first half, when we suffered reverses. 
A detachment of Communists arrived: there were over 50 of 
tlicm, 56, I think. Among them were such as had never had a 
rifle in their hands before that day. There were men of 40 or 
more, but the majority wore boys of 18, 19, or 20. I remember 
how one such smootlifaced IS-year-old Petrograd Conmmnist 
api^earcd at hcadcjuarters at night, rifle in hand, and told us 
how a regiment had deserted its position and they had taken 
its place, and he said: "We are Communards." From this de- 
tachment of 50 men, 12 returned, but. Comrades, they created 
an arm.v, these Petrograd and Moscow workmen, who went to 
abandoned positions in detachments of 50 or 60 men and re- 
turned 12 in number. They perished nameless, as the majority 
of heroes of the working class generally do. Our problem and 
duty is to endeavor to re-establish their names in the memory of 
the working class. Many perished there, and they are no longer 
kno\\7i by name, but they made for us that Red army which de- 
fends Soviet Russia and defends the conquests of the working 
class, that citadel, that fortress of the international revolution 
which our Soviet Russia now represents. From that time. Com- 
rades, our position became, as you know, incomparably better 
on the Eastern front, where the danger was the greatest, for the 
Czecho-Slovaks and White Guards, moving forward from Sim- 
birsk to Kazan, threatened us with a movement on Nijny in one 
direction, and, in another, with one toward Vologda, Yaroslav, 
and Archangel, to join up with the Anglo-French expedition. 
That is why our chief efforts were directed to the Eastern 
front, and these efforts gave a good result. The Volga has 
now been cleared from its source to its mouth. And if the 
Krasnov bands did attempt to cut in again between Tsaritsyn, 
Svetly Yar, and Sarepta, well, as you know, this effort was 
crushed by our Steppe army, which overthrew Krasnov's 
numerous forces, overthrew the maneuvering battalion of 
officers, took the staff prisoner, seized all the artillery, and, ac- 
cording to the latest information, was pursuing the troops that 
were fleeing in panic in all directions. The Volga has been freed 

at Samara and Syzran, and our affairs on the Ural are going in- 
22 



336 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

comparably better than before, for, on the Volga, we have freed 
important forces that are moving far on to the east. On the 
Ural we have approached Orenburg and Ufa after talcing 
Bugulma. The fall of Ufa and Orenburg is certain in the near 
future, and Ekaterinburg's fate is a foregone conclusion. 

It is true that while advancing to the east we lengthen our 
communications, and this always makes more difficulty. But 
we must take into consideration the fact that while advancing 
to the east we are seizing important military bases, for the enemy 
is rething everywhere in a panic and is leaving at our disposal 
enormous miUtary stores, and, what is more important, valuable 
works which serve for the production of munitions. The result 
is that not only we, but our mihtary bases, are advancing, and 
our miUtary position is improving, not becoming more difficult. 

Archangel and the Munnansk front represented a great danger 
for us until we became comnnced that that expedition could not 
join hands with the Czecho-Slovaks and the White Guards on the 
Volga and on the Ural. This danger may now be regarded as 
past. It is true that m their communiques the White Guards 
say that they have evacuated Kazan, Simbirsk ,Volsk,Khval>Tisk, 
Syzran and Samara for strategic reasons. We, of course, camiot 
make any objection to all this dirt having cleared out of the terri- 
tory of the Soviet repubhc for strategic reasons connected with 
their operations. But I remember how, when they tried to sur- 
round our army in Sviyajsk, they brought from Samara and Sim- 
birsk some officers' maneuvering battalions from newly mobihzed 
regiments. Sakinkov, Fortunatov, and Lebedev marched at the 
head of these troops to crush our forces that were struggling 
near Kazan. They were driven off, suffered a defeat, and issued 
a communique for the White Guard population: "We fulfilled 
our task, we retired in complete order m the full sense of the 
expression." This was not a strategical maneuver, but some- 
thing else — ^like the panic-stricken retreat of whipped hounds. 
So that there is no ground to fear that these two fronts A;v'ill be 
joined up. And once this is so, then the Archangel front, to 
which we, of course, must give our full attention, ceases to be 
threatening, at any rate for the near future, during the winter 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 337 

months. The White Sea will soon freeze, and communication 
between the expedition and the Eughsh metropoUs will bo 
interrupted. 

They will have to retire to the Murmansk coast that does not 
freeze. But it will not be difficult for us in this land of starva- 
tion, cut off from England by ice, to crush the English expedition 
with small forces. There remains the southern front, and to it 
I direct all the attention of the Petrograd Workmen's and Red 
Army Deputies' Soviet. It is quite natural that, here, you con- 
centrated all your attention on the northern and northeastern 
fronts, sent your best forces thither and were occupied in sus- 
taining, morally and physically, the forces despatched to those 
parts. 

And now, Comrades, we are living in times when the lines of 
international politics are changing their course with immense, 
with catastrophic swiftness. England thought Savinkov's White 
Guards were stronger than they proved to be. In the French 
legation and in the French embassy [sic] I was told that the 
former French Ambassador, Noulens, just before the Yaroslav 
revolt summoned Savinkov and told him that on such and such 
a date he must raise a revolt in Yaroslav. Savinkov answered 
that this was a hopeless affair. Noulens, in reply, showed him 
that they must join hands with the Czecho-Slovaks, whose armies 
were already disintegrating, and therefore, Savinkov's help was 
essential. Noulens formulated it in this way: "We do not give 
millions to your organizations in order that you should refuse to 
do what we want and when we want it." And then Savinkov 
organized the Yaroslav revolt. 

At that time we were weak, but, nevertheless, the Yaroslav 
revolt was crushed and all the Entente missions were swept out 
of Vologda. A strict revolutionary regime was set up there, the 
counter-revolutionary plots were cut off, and the northern opera- 
tions of the Franco-English ImperiaUsts were uprooted. 

They are now turning all their attention to the south, not 
only because they have suffered defeat in the north and north- 
east, but, first of all, because, for the time being, the interrela- 
tion of forces has changed. Germany, having brought into sub- 



338 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

jection the Balkan peninsula, Rumania, the Ukraine, and Trans- 
Caucasia, was trying to effect a dictatorship in the Northern 
Caucasus. 

Now the situation has radically changed, and the Anglo- 
French and American plunderers have discounted this to begin 
with. The orientation is now changing in all the Balkan coun- 
tries. Prev-iously, they were the vassals, the mercenaries, of 
Germanj'; now they are making ready to become within 24 
hours, or 24 minutes if required, the subject or half-willing vas- 
sals and mercenaries of Anglo-French imperiaUsm. This has 
already happened in Bulgaria, it is happening in Turkey, it may 
happen to-morrow in Rumania, and it has been for a long time 
in preparation in the Ukraine. To the land-owning and bour- 
geois classes there, it makes no difference whether Skoropad- 
skyism is on a German or an Anglo-French basis. The Ukraine 
knows that she cannot expect thanks from Skoropadsky, that he 
will sell Ukrainian land and Ukrainian grain to Germany just 
as he would to the Anglo-French imperialists. 

Then, the Caucasus, too, at present is a place where the en- 
deavors of English imperialism and the weakening endeavors of 
German imperiaUsm are at cross purposes. Baku was seized by 
the Turks, but there is reason to think that it will pass to-morrow 
into the hands of the English. After Baku it will be Astra- 
khan's turn, and then that of Cis-Caucasia. The Krasnovites, 
who at present are shooting GeiTtian ammunition from Gemian 
rifles, will to-morrow aim all their artillery according to the dic- 
tates of English imperialism. Kjasnov wall carry out these 
measures without hesitation and in this will unite with Denikin, 
who continues to carry on Alexej'ev's business. 

Just now. Comrades, the chief danger threatens us, not from 
the north and not from the east: this is a more distant danger; 
the months of this winter will roll by and the spring that follows 
must come before the danger from the Archangel side becomes 
a real one, or the Japanese can move their divisions toward old 
Ural, if their warhke imperialistic pretensions go so far. 

The danger in the south is much more immediate; if the 
Straits are opened by England's and France's fleets, if ail Anglq- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 339 

French expedition appcnrs on the shores of the Black Sea, this 
will mean a radical change of Krasnov's front, a change of the 
whole of Southern Russia, on the signal of danger from the 
Anglo-l'^rcufh mercenary bands, supi)orted by Russian White 
CUuird bands; this means a blow at Soviet Russia from the 
south. 

Germany is too weak just now to be a menace to us. Eng- 
land and France account themselves sufficiently strong still; 
they are at present passing through such a period as that which 
Germany passed through during the Brest-Litovsk negotiations, 
and the conclusion of the treaty. 

Gennany needed six months to fall a victim to her own crimes. 
England and France, who reached their culmination six months 
after Germany, require perhaps six or eight weeks, because his- 
toiy works at a feverish rate, and because the patience of the 
popular masses is being the more exhausted and indications of 
a catastrophe are visible in imperialistic politics. 

It may be hoped that in a few months, and it may be in a 
few weeks, the Anglo-French will be weaker than at present, but 
in the next few weeks they are an immediate and menacing enemy 
to us. This enemy threatens in a much gi-eater degree from the 
south than from the north, therefore, all our attention must be 
directed toward the south. Our first and chief problem is not 
to allow Ki-asnov to cross the front, nor to give him an oppor- 
tunity to join hands with the Anglo-French and receive military 
support from them. 

How is this to be achieved? It is very simple; Krasnov's and 
all these bands must be wiped off the face of the earth in the next 
two or three weeks. The Ukraine, as you know, during her ne- 
gotiation with us, refused to define the frontier with us and 
stated that it was the territory of the Don Republic there and 
this did not concern Soviet Russia. Now when we clear the 
Don Republic of the Krasnov bands, we shall have no frontier 
with the Ukraine; she herseK did not want to have this frontier, 
and we will seek it in conjunction with the Ukrainian workmen 
and peasants. The evacuation of the Don territory will be a 
death blow to all the Ukrainian bourgeoisie and to both of the 



340 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

counter-rcvolutioiis to the already waning Gcnnan scheme, 
because this will be the iiiin of Krasnov, to whom Skoropadsky 
appealed for military help in establishing Ukrainian Cossackdom; 
it will also be ruin to the Anglo-French scheme, because it reck- 
oned on Krasnov for the best reasons. In this way it will be a 
death blow to the whole Ukrainian counter-revolution. There 
can be no doubt that, when the Red Army regiments enter Ros- 
tov and Novocherkask, Soviet barricades will be erected in the 
streets of Kiev and Odessa. A revolution in the Ukraine which, 
of course, we do not regard v^^th indifference — and we shall oc- 
cupy the post that becomes Soviet Russia — means a mighty con- 
cussion for Rumania and the whole Balkan peninsula. Austria, 
which is now too closely bound up wnth the Ukraine, if only 
from the fact that Austrian, as well as German, troops are quar- 
tered there, is being more and more drawn into the rapids of 
the Ukrainian revolution. The knot of European imperialism, 
or even of world imperialism, is tied in the south of Russia, and 
especially on the Don front. The knot of the European revolu- 
tion is tied there, together with it, at present, and this knot we 
must cut in the shortest possible time. We have transferred to 
that part a sufficient quantity of mihtary forces, we are stronger 
than our enemy, and we hope to show this very soon indeed; but 
we need those same Soviet workers whom we had, and have, on 
the northern and eastern fronts, where, by their work, they se- 
cured the victories we have gained. So far there are in the south 
but few of you. Petrograd Comrades! There is not yet in the 
political or military organization of the administration of the 
front that revolutionary temper, that hardness and de- 
termination, which can only be given to the Red Front by 
the Petrograd and Moscow proletariat, that, with or without 
rifles, says, "I am a representative of the Petrograd Soviet, I 
am a Communard, and I know my post, which I A\'ill not desert, 
nor vdH I allow others to desert the posts assigned by the re- 
public." 

I have been again sent to you, to report that the center of 
attention of the So\iet republic is now the south, which is 
farther away than the north, but cannot be farther from your 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 341 

political consciousness and your revolutionary preparations, 
because it is th(>re that the fate of Soviet Kussia and tlic world 
revolution is now to be decided, I reported here yesterday to 
the leading Comrades of Red Petrograd, and they, of course, 
quite rightly di-ew my attention to the fact that Petrograd has 
given many men to all fronts; and everywhere I am always 
being accosted in the train by some Petrograd or Moscow work- 
man who is now president of the Executive Committee or of the 
Extraordinary Commission, or is District Commissioner — a 
youth of 19 or 20. I know that you have given many men, and 
those not the worst, to all the fronts in the provinces, but still 
I feel myself too much a man of Petrograd and a member of your 
Soviet not to know your strength and what j'^ou can do. I know 
that Petrograd is a Red hych-a; cut off 100 heads and in their 
place thousands of new ones will grow. I come again to you 
and say: Comrades, before the spring thaw which makes 
the advance difficult, we must achieve decisive operations. We 
must enter Rostov and Novochcrkask, clear the Don and plant 
a finu foundation for the predominance of Soviet power in aU the 
Northern Caucasus. From the military point of view, Comrades, 
we have done all that we could. We now need a firm revolu- 
tionary supjiort. Give us your Petrograd proletariat, gladiators, 
ready to go into fire and water, and carry whole masses with 
them; insure our young forces against signs of cowardice and 
hesitation; give us, in a word, true representatives of the Petro- 
grad Soviet, give us all you can of such workers, and you will see 
that over Rostov and Novochcrkask will float the Red standard 
of the Soviet republic. 



FAMOUS TWENTY-ONE POINTS OF THE 
THIRD INTERNATIONAL 

Adopted July, 1920 

The second congress of the Communist Inter- 
national adopts the following conditions for member- 
ship in the Communist International: 

1. The entire propaganda, and agitation must bear a genuinely 
Communistic character and agree with the program and the 
decision of the Third International. All the press organs of 
the party must be managed by responsible Communists, who 
have proved their devotion to the cause of the proletariat. 

The dictatorship of the proletariat must not be talked about 
as if it were an ordinary formula learned by heart, but it must 
be propagated for in such a way as to make its necessity apparent 
to every plain worker, soldier and peasant through the facts of 
daily life, which must be systematically watched by our press 
and fully utilized from day to day. 

PARTY MUST CONTROL PRESS 

The periodical and non-periodical press and all party pub- 
lisliing concerns must be under the complete control of the party 
management, regardless of the fact that the party as a whole 
being at that moment legal or illegal. It is inadmissible for the 
pubUshing concerns to abuse their autonomy and to follow a 
policy which does not entirely correspond to the party's pohcy. 

In the columns of the press, at public meetings, in trade 
unions, in co-operatives, and all other places where the sup- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 343 

porters of tlic Third International are admitted, it is necessary 
systematically and unmercifully to brand, not only the bour- 
geoisie, but also its accomplices, the reformers of all types. 

2. Every organization that wishes to aflfiliate with the Com- 
munist International must regularly and systematically remove 
the reformist and centrist elements from all the more or less 
important posts in the labor movement (in party organizations, 
editorial offices, trade unions, parliamentary groups, co-oper- 
atives, and municipal administrations) and replace them with 
well-tried Communists, without taking offense at the fact that, 
especially in the begimiing, the places of "experienced" oppor- 
tunists will be filled by plain workers from the masses. 

SPURN BOURGEOISIE LEGALITY 

3. In nearly every country of Europe and America the class 
struggle is entering upon the phase of civil war. Under such 
circumstances the Communists can have no confidence in 
bourgeoisie legality. 

It is their duty to create everywhere a parallel illegal organ- 
ization machine which at the decisive moment will be helpful 
to the party in fulfilling its duty to the revolution. 

In all countries where the Communists, because of a state of 
siege and because of exceptional laws directed against them, 
are unable to carry on their whole work legally, it is absolutely 
necessary to combine legal with illegal activities. 

4. The duty of spreading Communist ideas includes the special 
obligation to carry on a vigorous and systematic propaganda in 
the army. Where this agitation is forl)idden by laws of excep- 
tion it is to be carried on illegally, denunciation of such activiti(;s 
would be the same as treason to revolutionary duty and would 
be incompatible with membership in the Third International. 

SYSTEMATIC AGITATION URGED 

5. It is necessary to carry on a sj'stematic and well-planned 
agitation in the country districts. The working class cannot 



344 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

triumph unless its policy will have insured it the support of the 
country proletariat and at least a part of the poorer farmers, 
and the neutrality of part of the rest of the village population. 
The Communistic work in the country is gaining greatly in im- 
portance at the present time. 

It must principally be carried on with the help of the revolu- 
tionary Communist workers in the city and the country who have 
connections in the country. Renunciation of this work or its 
transfer to unreliable, semi-reformist hands is equal to renunci- 
ation of the proletarian revolution. 

6. Every party that wishes to belong to the Third Interna- 
tional is obligated to unmask not only open social patriotism, 
but also the dishonesty and hypocrisy of social pacifism, and 
systematically bring to the attention of the workers the fact 
that, without the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, no 
kind of an international court of arbitration, no kind of an agree- 
ment regarding the limitation of armaments, no kind of a "demo- 
cratic" renovation of the League of Nations will be able to pre- 
vent fresh imperialistic wars. 

MUST BREAK WITH REFORmSM 

7. The parties wishing to belong to the Communist Inter- 
national are obligated to proclaim a clean break with the re- 
formism and with the policy of the "center" and to propagate 
this break throughout the ranks of the entire party membership. 
Without this a logical Communist policy is impossible. 

The Communist International demands unconditionally and 
in the form of an ultimatum the execution of this break within 
a very brief period. The Communist International cannot 
reconcile itself to a condition that would allow notorious oppor- 
tunists, such as are now represented by Turati, Kautsky, Hil- 
ferding, Hillquit, Longuet, MacDonald, Modigliani, et al., to 
have the right to be counted as members of the Third Inter- 
national. That could only lead to the Third International re- 
sembling to a high degree the dead Second International. 

8. In the matter of colonies and oppressed nations a particu- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 315 

htrly clear-cut. stand by the parties is necessary in those coun- 
tries whose bourgeoisie is in possession of colonies and oppresses 
other nations. 

Every party wishing to belong to the Communist International 
is obligated to umnask the tricks of "its" own imperialists 
in the colonies, to support every movement for freedom in the 
colonies, not only with words but with deeds, to demand the 
expulsion of its native imperialists from those colonies, to create 
in the hearts of the workers of its ovm country a genuuie fraternal 
feeling for the working population of the colonies and for the 
o]3])resscd nations and to carry on a systematic agitation among 
the troops of its own country against all oppression of the colonial 
peoples. 

9. Every party wishing to belong to the Communist Inter- 
national must systematically and persistently develop a Com- 
munistic agitation within the trade unions, the workers' and 
shop councils, the co-operatives of consumption and other mass 
organizations of the workers. 

Within these organizations it is necessary to organize Com- 
munistic nuclei which, through continuous and persistent work, 
are to ^vin over the trade unions, etc., for the cause of Com- 
munism. These nuclei are obligated in their daily work every- 
where to expose the treason of social patriots and the instability 
of the "center." The Communist nuclei must be completely 
under the control of the party as a whole. 

10. Every party belonging to the Communist International 
is oljligatcd to carry on a stul^born struggle against the Amster- 
dam "International" of the yellow trade unions. It must carry 
on a most emphatic propaganda among the workers organized 
in trade unions for a break with the yellow Amsterdam Inter- 
national. With all its means it must support the rising mter- 
national association of the Red trade unions which affiliate with 
the Communist International. 

MUST WATCH PARLIAMENTARIANS 

11. Parties wishing to belong to the Third International arc 
obligated to subject the personnel of the parliamentary groups 



346 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

to a revision, to cleanse these groups of all unreliable elements, 
and to make these groups subject to the party executives, not 
only in form but in fact, by demanding that each Communist 
member of Parliament subordinate his entire activities to the 
interests of genuinely revolutionary^ propaganda and agitation. 

12. The parties belonging to the Communist International 
must be built upon the principle of democratic centralization. 
In the present epoch of acute civil war the Communist party 
will only be in a position to do its duty if it Ls organized along 
extremely centralized lines, if it is controlled by iron discipline, 
and if its party central body, supported by the confidence of 
the party membersliip, is fully equipped with power, authority 
and the most far-reaching faculties. 

13. The Communist parties of those countries where the Com- 
munists carry on their work legally must from time to time in- 
stitute cleansings (new registrations) of the personnel of their 
party organization in order to systematically rid the party of 
the petit bourgeois elements creeping into it. 

MUST SUPPORT SOVIETS 

14. Every party wishing to belong to the Communist Inter- 
national is obligated to offer unqualified support to every Soviet 
republic in its struggle against the counter-revolutionary forces. 
The Communist parties must carry on a clean-cut propaganda 
for the hindering of the transportation of munitions of war to 
the enemies of the Soviet Repubhc; and furthermore, they must 
use all means, legal or illegal, to carry propaganda, etc., among 
the troops sent to throttle the workers' repubhc. 

15. Parties that have thus far still retained their old Social 
Democratic programs are now obhgated to alter these programs 
within the shortest time possible and, in accordance with the 
particular conditions of their countries, work out a new Com- 
munist program in the sense of the decisions of the Communist 
International. 

As a rule the program of every party belonging to the Com- 
munist International must be sanctioned by the regular Congress 
of the Communist International, or by its executive committee. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 347 

In case the program of any party is not sanctioned by the 
executive committee of the Communist International, the 
party concerned has the right to appeal to the Congress of the 
Communist International. 

CONGRESS RULES ARE BINDING 

16. All decisions of the Congress as of the Communist Inter- 
national, as well as the decisions of its executive committee, 
are binding upon all the parties belonging to the Communist 
International. The Communist International, which is working 
under conditions of the most acute civil war, must be constructed 
along much more centraUzed lines than was the case with the 
Second International. 

In this connection, of course, the Communist International 
and its executive committee must, m their entire activities, 
take into consideration the varied conditions under which the 
individual parties have to fight and labor, and only adopt de- 
cisions of general apphcation regarding such questions as can be 
covered by such decisions. 

17. In comiection with this, all parties wisliing to belong to 
the Communist International must change their names. Every 
party wishing to belong to the Communist International must 
bear the name: Communist party of such and such a country 
(section of the Third Communist International). The question 
of name is not only a formal matter, but is also to a high degree 
a poUtical question of great importance. 

The Communist International has declared war upon the 
whole bourgeois world and all yellow Social Democratic parties. 
It is necessary to make clear to every plain workingman the 
difference between the Communist parties and the old official 
"Social Democratic" and "Socialist" parties that have betrayed 
the banner of the working class. 

MUST PRINT ALL DOCUMENTS 

18. All the leading press organs of the parties of all countries 
are obUgated to print all important official documents of the 
executive committee of the Communist International, 



348 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

19. All parties that belong to the Communist International, 
or that have applied for admission to it, arc oljligated to call, 
as soon as possible, but at the latest not more than four months 
after the second congress of the Communist International, a 
special convention for the purpose of examining all these con- 
ditions. 

In this connection the central bodies must see to it that all the 
local organizations are made acquainted with the decisions of 
the second congress of the Communist International. 

20. Those parties that thus far wish to enter into the Third 
International, but have not radically changed their former 
tactics, must see to it that two-thirds of the members of their 
central committees and of all their important central bodies are 
Comrades who unambiguously and publicly declared in favor of 
their parties' entry into the Third International before the 
second congress of the Communist International. 

Exceptions may be allowed with the approval of the executive 
conunittee of the Third International. The executive committee 
of the Conmiunist International also has the right to make ex- 
ceptions in the cases of the representatives of the center tendency 
named in paragraph 7. 

21. Those party members who, on principle, reject the condi- 
tions and these laid down by the Communist International are to 
be expelled from the party. 

The same thing applies especially to delegates to the special 
party convention. 



MOSCOW INTERNATIONAL ISSUES MANI- 
FESTO 

(From N. Y. Call, January 27, 1919) 

Failing to measure up to the standard of 
Socialist ethics set by the Moscow Interna- 
tional, Morris Hillquit, Jean Longuet, and Karl 
Kautsky are classed as social-reformers by the 
Executive Committee of the Communist Interna- 
tional, in a manifesto dated September 1, 1919. 

In the United States, the Industrial Workers of 
the World, according to this manifesto, is leading 
the fight for the Soviets. 

"The universal unifying program is at the present 
moment the recognition of the struggle for the 
dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of the 
Soviet power," it declares, and then proceeds to 
draw a line of distinction between the revolu- 
tionary proletariat and the opportunists, between 
"the Communists and the social- traitors of every 
brand." 

The manifesto follows : 

Dear Comrades: 

The present phase of the revolutionarj'' movement has, along 
with other questions, very sharply placed the question of parlia- 
mentarism upon the order of the day's discussion. In France, 
America, England and Germany, simultaneously with the 



350 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

aggravation of the class struggle, all revolutionary elements are 
adhering to the Communist movement by uniting among them- 
selves or by co-ordinating their actions under the slogan of 
Soviet power. The anarchistic-syndicalist groups and the 
groups that now and then call themselves simply anarchistic 
are thus also joining the general current. The executive com- 
mittee of the Communist International welcomes this most 
heartily. 

I. W. W. LEADS FIGHT FOR SOVIET HERE 

In France the syndicalist group of Comrade Pcricat forms the 
heart of the Communist party; in America, and also to some 
extent in England, the fight for the Soviets is led by such organ- 
izations as the I. W. W. (Industrial Workers of the World). 
These groups and tendencies have always actively opposed the 
parliamentary methods of fighting. 

On the other hand, the elements of the Communist party that 
are derived from the Socialist parties are, for the most part, 
inclined to recognize action in Parliament, too. (The Loriot 
group in France, the members of the A.S.P. in America [possibly 
meaning the American Socialist party], of the Independent 
Labor party in England, etc.). AH these tendencies, which 
ought to be united as soon as possible in the Communist party 
at all cost, need uniform tactics. Consequently, the question 
must be decided on a broad scale and as a general measure, and 
the executive connnittee of the Communist International turns 
to all the affiliated parties with the present circular letter, which 
is especially dedicated to this question. 

RECOGNITION OF DICTATORSHIP UNIFYING PROGRAM 

The universal unifying program is at the present moment 
the recognition of the struggle for the dictatorship of the 
proletariat in the form of the Soviet power. History has so 
placed the question that it is right on this question 
that the line is drawn between the revolutionary pro- 
letariat and the opportunists, between the Communists and the 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 351 

social traitors of every brand. The so-called Centre (Kautsky 
in Germany, Longuet in France, the I. L. P. and some eU^ments 
of the B. S. P. in England, Hillquit in America) is, in spite of 
its protestations, an objectively anti-Socialist tendc'ncy, because 
it cannot, and does not wish to, lead the struggle for the Soviet 
power of the proletariat. 

On the contrary, those groups and parties which formerly 
rejected any kind of pohtical struggles (for example, some anar- 
chist groups), have, by recognizing the Soviet power, the dic- 
tatorship of the proletariat, really abandoned their old stand- 
point as to political action, because they have recognized the 
idea of the seizure of power by the working class, the power that 
is necessary for the suppression of the opposing bourgeoisie. 
Thus, we repeat, a common program for the struggle for the 
So\'iet dictatorship has been found. 

The old divisions in the international labor movement have 
plainly outUved their time. The war has caused a regrouping. 
Many of the anarchists or syndicaUsts, who rejected parlia- 
mentarism, conducted themselves just as despicably' and treason- 
ably during the five years of the war as did the old leaders of 
the Social Democracy who always have the name of Marx on 
their hps. The unification of forces is being effected in a new 
manner: some are for the proletarian revolution, for the Soviets, 
for the dictatorship, for mass action, even up to armed uprisings 
— the others are against this plan. This is the principal question 
of to-day. This is the main criterion. The new combinations 
will be formed according to these labels, and are being so formed 
already. 

SOVIETISM AND PARLIAMENTAEISM 

In what relation docs the recognition of the Soviet idea stand 

to parliamentarism? Right here a sharp dividing Une must be 

drawn between two questions which logically have nothing to 

do with each other: The question of parliamentarism as a 

desired form of the organization of the state and the question 

of the exploitation of parliamentarism for the development of 

the revolution. The Comrades often confuse these two ques- 
23 



352 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

tions, something which has an extraordinarily injurious effect 
upon the entire practical struggle. We wish to discuss each of 
these questions in its order and draw all the necessary deductions. 



SOVIET POWER INCOMPATIBLE WITH PARLIAMENTARISM 

What is the form of the proletarian dictatorship? We reply: 
The Soviets. This has been demonstrated by an experience 
that has a world-wide significance. Can the Soviet power be 
combined with parUamentarism? No, and yet again, no. It is 
absolutely incompatible with the existing parliaments, because 
the parliamentary machine embodies the concentrated power of 
the bourgeoisie. The deputies, the chambers of deputies, their 
newspapers, the system of bribery, the secret connections of the 
parliamentarians with the leaders of the baiaks, the connection 
with all the apparatus of the boiu-geois state — all these are 
fetters for the working class. They must be burst. 

The governmental machine of the bourgeoisie, consequently 
also the bourgeois parliaments, are to be broken, disrupted, 
destroyed, and upon their ruins is to be organized a new power, 
the power of the union of the working class, the workers' "par- 
Haments," i.e., the Soviets. 

PEACEFUL REVOLUTION NOT OBTAINABLE BY PARLIAMENTARY 

METHODS 

Only the betrayers of the workers can deceive the workers 
with the hope of a "peaceful" social revolution, along the fines 
of parliamentary reforms. Such persons are the worst enemies 
of the working class, and a most pitiless struggle must be 
waged against them; no compromise with them is permissible. 
Therefore, our slogan for any bourgeois country you may choose 
is: "Down with the Parliament! Long five the power of the 
Soviets!" 

Nevertheless, a person may put the question this way : "Very 
wefi, you deny the power of the present bourgeois parliaments; 
then why don't you organize new, more democratic parliaments 
on the basis of a real universal suffrage?" During the Socialist 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 353 

revoluHon tho striigglo has become so acute that the working 
class must act quickly and resolutely, without allowing its class 
enemies to enter into its camj), into its organization of power. 
Such cjualities are only found in the Soviets of workers, soldiers, 
sailors and peasants, elected in the factories and shops, in the 
country and in the barracks. So the question of the form of tlui 
proletarian power is put this way. Now the government is to 
be overthrown. Kings, presidents, parliaments, chambers of 
deputies, national assemblies — all these histitutions are our 
sworn enemies, that must be destroyed. 



DESTROY PARLIAMENTS WHILE UTILIZING THEM, SAY COMMUNISTS 

Now we take up the second basic question : Can the I )Ourgeois 
parliaments be fully utilized for the purpose of developing the 
revolutionary class struggle? Logically, as we just remarked, 
this question is by no means related to the first question. In 
fact: A person surely can be trying to destroy any kind of an 
organization by joining it and by "utilizing" it. This is also 
perfectly understood by our class enemies when they exploit the 
official Social Democratic parties, the trade unions and the like 
for their purposes. 

BROKE UP CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY 

Let us take the extreme example : The Russian Communists, 
the Bolsheviki, voted in the election for the Constituent As- 
sembly. They met in its hall. But they came there to break up 
this Constituent within 24 hours and fully to realize the So^'ict 
power. The party of the Bolsheviki also had its deputies in the 
Czar's Imperial Duma. Did the party at that time "recognize" 
the Duma, as an ideal, or, at least, an endurable form of govern- 
ment? It would be lunacy to assume that. It sent its repre- 
sentatives there so as to proceed against the apparatus of the 
Czarist power from that side, too, and to contriJDute to the de- 
struction of that same Duma. It was not for nothing that the 
Czarist government condemned the Bolshevist "parhamentari- 



354 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

ans" to prison for "high treason." The Bolshevist leaders were 
also carrying on an illegal work, although they temporarily made 
use of their " inviolabiUty " in welding together the masses for 
the drive against Czarism. 

But Russia was not the only place where that kind of "par- 
liamentary" activity was carried on. Look at Germany and the 
activities of Liebknecht. The murdered Comrade was the per- 
fect type of a revolutionist, and so was there then something 
non-revolutionary in the fact that he, from the tribune of the 
cursed Prussian Landtag, called upon the soldiers to rise against 
the Landtag? On the contrary. Here, too, we see the complete 
admissibiUty and usefulness of his exploitation of the situation. 
If Liebknecht had not been a deputy he would never have been 
able to accomplish such an act; his speeches would have had no 
such an echo. The example of the Swedish Communists in Par- 
liament also convinces us of this. In Sweden Comrade Hoglund 
played, and plays, the same role as Liebknecht did in Germany. 
Making use of his position as a deputy, he assists in destroying 
the bourgeois parliamentary system; none else in Sweden has 
done as much for the cause of the revolution and the struggle 
agahist the war as our friend. 

BULGARIAN COMMUNISTS' WORK SATISFACTORY 

In Bulgaria we see the same thing. The Bulgarian Com- 
munists have successfully exploited the tribune of Parhament for 
revolutionary purposes. At the recent elections they won seats 
for 47 deputies. Comrades Blagoief, Kirkof, Kolarof, and 
other leaders of the Bulgarian Communist party understand 
how to exploit the parliamentary tribune in the service of the 
proletarian revolution. Such " parhamentary work" demands 
pecuhar daring and a special revolutionary spirit; the men there 
are occupying especially dangerous positions; they are laying 
mines under the enemy while in the enemy's camp; they enter 
Parliament for the purpose of getting this machine in their hands 
in order to assist the masses behind the walls of the Parliament 
in the work of blowing it up. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 355 

Are we for the maintenance of the bourgeois "democratic" 
parUaments as the form of the achiiinistration of the state? 

No, not in any cas(\ We are for the Soviets. 

But arc wc for the full utilization of these parliaments for our 
Communist work — as long as we are not yet strong enough to 
overthrow the Parliament? 



PARLIAMENTARY BETRAYAL HERE IS CHARGE 

Yes, we are for this — in consideration of a whole list of condi- 
tions. We know very well that in France, America and Eng- 
land no such parliamentarians have yet arisen from the masses 
of the workers. In those countries we have up to now observed 
a picture of parliamentary betrayal. But this is no proof of the 
incorrectness of the tactics that we regard as correct! 

It is only a matter of there being revolutionary parties there 
like the Bolsheviki or the German Spartacides. If there is such 
a party then everything can become quite different. It is particu- 
larly necessary: 1, that the deciding center of the struggle Ues 
outside Parliament (strikes, uprisings and other kinds of mass 
action); 2, that the activities in Parliament be combined with 
this struggle; 3, that the deputies also perform illegal work; 
4, that they act for the central committee and subject to its 
orders; 5, that they do not heed the parliamentary forms in 
their acts (have no fear of direct clashes with the bourgeois 
majority, "talk past it," etc.). 

NO FIXED ELECTION TACTICS 

The matter of taking part in the election at a given time, during 
a given electoral campaign, depends upon a whole string of con- 
crete circumstances which, in each comitry, must be particularly 
considered at each given time. The Russian Bolsheviki were 
for boycotting the elections for the first Imperial Duma in 1906. 
And these same persons were for taking part in the elections of 
the second Imperial Duma, when it had been shown that the 
bourgeois-agrarian power would still rule in Russia for many a 



356 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

year. In the year 1918, before the election for the German 
National Assembly, one section of the Spartacides was for taking 
part in the elections, the other section was against it. But the 
party of the Spartacides remained a unified Communist party. 

RUSSIAN COMMUNISTS LEAVE ROOM FOR MANEUVERING 

In principle we cannot renounce utilization of parliamentarism. 
The party of the Russian Bolshevist declared, in the spring of 
1918, at its seventh congress, when it was already in power, in a 
special resolution, that the Russian Communists, in case the 
bourgeois democracy in Russia, through a peculiar combination 
of circumstances, should once more get the upper hand, could 
be compelled to return to the utilization of bourgeois parlia- 
mentarism. Room for maneuvering is also to be allowed in this 
respect. 

The Comrades' principal efforts are to consist in the work of 
mobilizing the masses; establishing the party, organizing their 
own groups in the unions and capturing them, organizing Soviets 
in the course of the struggle, leading the mass struggle, agitation 
for the revolution among the masses — all this is of first-line im- 
portance; parliamentary action and participation in electoral 
campaigns only as one of the helps in this work — no more. 

INSISTS UPON UNITY OP COMMUNISTS 

If this is so — and it undoubtedly is so — then it is a matter of 
course that it doesn't pay to split into those factions that are of 
different opinions only about this, now secondary, question. 
The practice of parliamentary prostitution was so disgusting 
that even the best Comrades have prejudices in this question. 
These ought to be overcome in the course of the revolutionary 
struggle. Therefore, we urgently appeal to all groups and or- 
ganizations which are carrying on a real struggle for the Soviets, 
and call upon them to unite firmly, even despite the lack of agree- 
ment on this question. 

All those who are for the Soviets and the proletarian dictator- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 357 

ship wish to unite as soon as possible and form a unified Com- 
munist party. 
With Communist greetings, 

G. ZiNOVlEF, 

President of the Executive Committee of the Communist 

International. 
September 1, 1019. 



MANIFESTO OF THE MOSCOW INTERNA- 
TIONAL 

(From N. Y. Call, July 24, 1919) 

The following is a full copy of the manifesto 
adopted by the Moscow, or Communist, Interna- 
tional Congress, held March 2d, last. Much in- 
terest and no little mystery have shrouded the his- 
tory of the congress. Called to organize a Third 
International, the blockade and denial of passports 
made it impossible for the Russian Communist 
party (the Bolsheviki), under whose auspices it was 
held, to hold the congress altogether in the open. 

The Russian Socialists have adopted the old 
name of the time of Marx and Engels, that of Com- 
munists, to distinguish themselves from those So- 
cialists of Europe who supported the imperialism 
of their governments during the war. The use of 
the name is somewhat confusing, inasmuch as the 
word has another and a distinct meaning in Eng- 
lish ; but, wherever it is used, it means revolutionary 
Socialists as distinguished from Social patriots and 
mere parliamentary Socialists. 

It is known that the invitation to send delegates 
did not specifically include the Socialist party of 
the United States by name, but called for dele- 
gates from the Socialist Labor party, the Socialist 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 359 

Propaganda League, the I. W. W., the W. I. I. U. 
and "those sections of the SociaHst party whose 
sentiments are expressed by Debs." 

It is known that the information on SociaHst con- 
ditions in the United States was supphed to the 
Bolsheviki of Russia by Boris Reinstein, a member 
of the SociaHst Labor party, and one S. J. Rutgers, 
a Dutch Communist, who resided in America for a 
few years, and who organized the now long defunct 
SociaHst Propaganda League. He is now in Moscow. 

It is beheved that Rutgers and Reinstein were 
seated as representatives of the United States, 
with voice and no vote. 

The authors of the manifesto are Charles Rakow- 
sky, Nicholai Lenine, G. Zinovieff, Leon Trotzky 
and Fritz Platten. The congress was, necessarily, 
composed largely of Russian Bolsheviki and syn- 
dicalists, but it is said that there were some Swiss, 
Italians and French Socialists there who happened 
to be in Russia at the time. 

The manifesto, here given in full, hitherto has 
not been printed in its entirety in America. 

THE GUIDING LINES OF THE COMMUNIST INTER- 
NATIONAL 

[adopted at the congress of the communist international 
FROM march 2 to 6, 1919.] 



A new era has dawned, the era of the collapse of capitalism, 
of its internal breakup, the era of the Communist rcvohition of 



\^ 



360 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

the proletariat. Triumphant proletarian revolutions in some 
countries; growing revolutionary fermentation in other coun- 
tries; uprisings in colonies; the utter incapacity of the governing 
classes to guide any further the destinies of peoples — that is the 
spectacle of the present state of things throughout the world. 

Humanity, whose entire ci\'ilization now lies shattered in 
fragments, is menaced by the danger of complete annihilation. 
There is only one power which can save it; that power is the 
proletariat. The old capitalist "order" cannot exist any longer. 
Chaos is the final result of the capitalist method of production, 
and it can only be overcome by the largest productive class — 
the working class. Real order — the Communist order — must 
be made by the workers. They must break the domination of 
capitalism, make wars impossible, abolish all state frontiers, 
transform the whole world into one community whose labor 
shall be for its own good, and realize the brotherhood and 
liberty of the peoples. 

As against this, world capitalism is making ready for the final 
contest. Under the guise of "a League of Nations," and with a 
host of pacifist plirases, it is making a last attempt to piece 
together again the parts of the capitalist system, which are 
spontaneously crumbling, and to direct its forces against the 
ever-growing proletarian revolution. The proletariat must 
reply to this colossal conspiracy of the capitalist class by the 
conquest of the political power, direct that power against its 
class enemies, and set it in motion as a lever for the economic 
revolution. The ultimate triumph of the proletariat of the 
world means the beginning of the true history of a free hu- 
manity. 

THE CONQUEST OF POLITICAL POWER 

The capture of political power by the proletariat is identical 
with the destruction of the political power of the bourgeoisie. 
The organized power of the bourgeoisie is the bourgeois ma- 
chinery of the government, with its capitalist army, commanded 
by bourgeois and junker officers; with its police and gendarmerie; 
with its jailers and judges; with its priests and state function- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 301 

arics. The conquest of political power docs not simply mean a 
change of personnel in the ministries. It means the overthrow 
of the hostile state-machinery, the disarmament of the bour- 
geoisie, of the counter-revolutionary officers, the White Guards 
and the arming of the proletariat, of the revolutionary soldiers 
and of the Red Workers' Guards; the removal of all bourgeois 
judges, and the organization of proletarian tribunals; the aboli- 
tion of the rule of the reactionary state officials and the creation 
of new proletarian organs of administration. The triumph of 
the proletariat consists in disorganizing the hostile authority 
and organizing the proletarian authority; in destroying the 
bourgeois state machine and creating a proletarian machinery of 
state. Only after the proletariat has achieved victory and has 
broken the resistance of the bourgeoisie can it make use of its 
former opponents for the benefit of the new order by placing 
them under its control and gradually associating them in the 
work of Communist reconstruction. 



DEMOCRACY AND DICTATORSHIP 

The proletarian state, fike every other state, is an apparatus 
of repression. It is, however, directed against the enemies of 
the workmg class. Its aim is to break down the resistance of the 
exploiters, who, in the desperate contest, use every means to 
suppress the revolution in blood and render it impossible. The 
dictatorship of the proletariat, which gives it a privileged posi- 
tion in society, is, otherwise, a temporary arrangement. In pro- 
portion as the resistance of the bourgeoisie is broken and the 
bourgeoisie is expropriated and gradually becomes a part of 
the working class, the dictatorship of the proletariat wiU dis- 
appear, the state will die out and classes will cease to exist. 

So-called democracy, i.e., the bourgeois democracy, is nothing 
but the veiled dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The famous 
common "will of the people "no more exists than does the "homo- 
geneous nation." As a matter of fact, what exists is classes 
with antagonistic, irreconcilable interests. Inasmuch, however, 
as the bourgeoisie represents but a small minority, it needs this 



362 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

fiction, this pretense of the national "will of the people," in order, 
by means of this high-sounding phrase, to establish its domina- 
tion over the working classes and to impose upon them its own 
class-will. As against this, the proletariat forming, as it does, 
the vast majority of the population, openly makes use of the 
class-power of its mass-organizations, of its councils (Soviets), 
in order to abolish the privileges of the bourgeoisie, and to secure 
the passage to a Communist society, in which class will have no 
place. In bourgeois democracy the center of gravity lies in the 
purely formal declarations of rights and hberties; which, how- 
ever, are quite unattainable by the working people — the prole- 
tariat and semi-proletariat — who possess no material means, 
while the bourgeoisie employs its material means in order to 
deceive and gull the people with the aid of its press and organiza- 
tions. As against this, the Soviet system — this new type of 
state-authority — applies itself to the task of enabling the pro- 
letariat to realize its rights and hberties. The Soviet author- 
ity hands over the best palaces, houses, printing works, stocks 
of paper, etc., to the people for its press, its meetings and its 
unions. Only in this way, indeed, does a real proletarian de- 
mocracy become possible. 

Bourgeois democracy, with its parliamentary system, only 
deludes the masses of the people into beheving that they partici- 
pate in the government of the State. In point of fact the masses 
and their organizations are held completely at a distance from 
actual power and actual govenmient. In the Soviet system, on 
the contrary, it is the organizations of the masses, and through 
them the masses themselves that govern, since the Soviets asso- 
ciate with the State administration an ever-increasing number of 
workers. Only in this way will the entire working population 
gradually become associated with the actual business of govern- 
ment. The Soviet system rests therefore on the mass-organiza- 
tions of the proletariat, that is, on the councils (Soviets) them- 
selves, the revolutionary trades unions, co-operative societies, 
etc. Bourgeois democracy and the parliamentary system, by 
the separation of legislative and executive power and by the 
irrevocable parhamentary mandate, widen the gulf between the 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 363 

masses and the State. Under the Soviet system, on the contrary, 
the right of recall, the combination of the legislative and execu- 
tive powers, the character of the councils as working corpora- 
tions, identify the masses with the governments of the country. 
This connection is further promoted by the fact that under the 
Soviet system the elections do not take place on the basis of arti- 
ficial territorial areas but on that of places of production. 

In this way the Soviet system realizes true proletarian de- 
mocracy — democracy for and within the proletariat, as against 
the bourgeoisie. The industrial proletariat enjoys under this 
system a privileged position, since it is the most advanced, the 
best organized, and, politically, the ripest class under whose hege- 
mony the semi-proletariat and the small peasant of the country- 
side are to be gradually raised to a higher level. These temporary 
privileges of the industrial proletariat must be made use of in 
order to withdraw the poorer lower middle class masses of the 
countryside from under the influence of the large farmers and 
bourgeoisie, and to organize and educate them as co-workers in 
the task of communist reconstruction. 



n 



THE EXPROPEIATION OF THE BOURGEOISIE AND THE SOCIALIZATION 

OF PRODUCTION 

The dissolution of the capitalist order and of capitalist dis- 
ciphne of labor makes the re-establishment of production on a 
capitalist basis impossible. Wage disputes of the workers, even 
if they are successful, do not bring about the expected amel- 
ioration in their condition. The standard of the worker's life 
can really be raised only when production is controlled not by 
the bourgeoisie but by the proletariat itself. In order to raise 
the productive economic powers, in order to break at the earliest 
possible moment the resistance of the bourgeoisie, which is pro- 
longing the death struggle of the old social order, and is thus 
leading to utter ruin, the proletarian dictatorship must carry 
through the expropriation of the large capitalists and landowners 



-rt-^ 



364 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

and transfomti the means of production and exchange into the 
common property of the proletarian State. 

Communism is now being born from the wreckage of cap- 
italism. History does not offer mankind any other way of escape. 
The opportunists who make the Utopian demand for the resus- 
citation of the capitalist economic society, in order to defer 
BociaUzation, only prolong the process of dissolution and increase 
the menace of a total cataclysm. The Communist revolution, 
on the contrary, is the best and only means by which the most 
important productive force — the proletariat, and with it society 
itself — can be preserved. 

Proletarian dictatorship in no way carries with it any kind of 
distribution of the means of production and exchange. On the 
contraiy, its object is to bring about a greater centralization of 
the productive forces and to co-ordinate production as a whole, 
according to one uniform plan. As the first steps to the socializa- 
tion of the entire economic resources the following may be men- 
tioned: The socialization of the machinery of the great banking 
institutions wliich at present control production; the capture 
through the government of the proletariat of all the economic 
institutions managed by the state; the taking over of all muni- 
cipal enterprises; the socialization of the syndicates and trusts, 
as well as such industries where the concentration and centraliza- 
tion of capital permits it; the socialization of landed estates and 
their conversion into socially managed agricultural concerns. As 
regards the smaller concerns the proletariat must unite them 
by degrees, according to their size. But here it must be expressly 
emphasized that small property will in no way be expropriated, 
and that proprietors who do not exploit hired labor will not be 
exposed to any violent measures. This section of the population 
will be gradually drawn into the Sociahst organization by ex- 
ample and by practice, which will demonstrate to it the advan- 
tages of the new order — the order which will release the small 
peasantry and the small urban producer from the economic 
pressure of usurious capitalists and landlords and from the burden 
of taxation (especially through the annulment of State debts). 

The task of the proletarian dictatorship in the economical 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 365 

Bphcre can only bo fulfilled in proportion as the proletariat is 
able to create centralized organs for the management of pro- 
duction and to introduce management by the workers. To 
that end it must necessarily make use of those of its mass or- 
ganizations which are most closely bound up with the process of 
production. 

DISTRIBUTION 

In the domain of distribution the proletarian dictatorship must 
replace commerce by a just chstribution of products. To attain 
that the following measures need to be taken : The socialization 
of the whole business; the taking over by the proletariat of the 
entire state and municipal machinery of distribution; the con- 
trol of the large co-operative societies, whose organizations will 
yet play an important economic part in the period of transition, 
and the gradual centralization and conversion of all these bodies 
into one homogeneous whole, carrying out a rational distribution 
of products. 

Both in the sphere of production and in that of distribution 
all qualified technicians and specialists are to be made use of 
when their political opposition has been broken and they have 
learned how to accommodate themselves, not to capitalism, but 
to the new system of production. The proletariat will not 
oppress them, but, on the contrary, will give them for the first 
time the opportunity for unfolding their creative capacities. 
The proletarian dictatorship will replace the separation between 
manual and brain work which capitalism has developed by their 
combination, and in that way will unite science and labor. 
Simultaneously with the expropriation of factories, mines, es- 
tates, etc., the proletariat must abolish the exploitation of the 
people by capitalist house owners, and place the large houses at 
the disposal of the local workers' councils, and settle the working 
class in bourgeois residences. 

During this great period of transformation the Soviets must 
build up, without mtermission, the whole apparatus of govern- 
ment in an ever more centralized form, while at the same time 



366 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

directly associating with administration ever larger sections of 
the laboring population. 



THE ROAD TO VICTORY 

The revolutionary epoch demands that the proletariat should 
employ such fighting methods as will concentrate its entire 
energy, viz., the method of mass action, and lead to its logical 
consequence — the direct collision with the capitalist state ma- 
chine in an open combat. All other methods, e.g., revolutionary 
use of bourgeois parliamentarism, will in the revolution have only 
a subordinate value. 

The indispensable prerequisite of such a successful struggle 
is the separation, not only from the actual lackeys of capitalism 
and the executioners of the Communist revolution — which is 
the role of the Social-Democrats of the Right — but also from 
the Center parties (hke the Kautskyans), which at the critical 
moment invariably abandon the proletariat in order to com- 
promise with its avowed enemies. On the other hand, a coalition 
is necessary with those elements of the revolutionary workers' 
movement who, though they did not previously belong to the 
SociaUst party, now, on the whole, take up the standpoint of the 
proletarian dictatorship in the form of the power of Soviets, e.g., 
some of the sections among the Sjaidicalists. 

The growth of the revolutionary movement In all countries; 
the danger of the strangulation of this revolution by the alliance 
of capitalist states; the attempt of the Socialist traitors to bind 
themselves together (the formation of the Yellow "International" 
at Berne) in order to help the Wilsonian League; and lastly, the 
absolute necessity of co-ordinating proletarian activities — all 
this must lead to the establishment of a really revolutionary and 
really proletarian-communist international. This international, 
suborcUnating as it does so-called national interests to the in- 
terests of the international revolution, will embody the mutual 
aid of the proletarian in the various countries, because without 
economic and other mutual assistance the proletariat will not 
be able to organize the new society. On the other hand, inter- 



THE SOCIAL INTERI'IiETATlON OF HISTORY 367 

national proletarian Communism, in contrast to the yellow 
Socialist-pairiolic international, will give support to the ex- 
ploited eoloniul races in their fight against iiniierinlism, so as 
to advance the ultimate overthrow of the imperialist world 
system. 

THE FINAL CONFLICT 

The capitalist criminals asserted at the outbreak of the World 
War that they were only defending their respective Father- 
lands. Soon, however, German imperialism showed by its acts 
of blood in Russia, in the Ukraine and in Finland, its real pred- 
atory character. At present the Entente Powers, too, stand 
unmasked as world-bandits and murderers of the proletariat. 
In company with the German bourgeoisie and with the Socialist- 
patriots, their lips muttering hypocritical phrases about peace, 
they are trying, by the aid of their war machines and stupefied 
barbarian colonial troops, to throttle the revolution of the Euro- 
pean proletariat. The White Terror of the bourgeoisie is inde- 
scribable, countless are its victims amongst the working classes. 
Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg — their best — have perished. 
Against this the proletariat must defend itself — defend itself at 
all cost! The Communist international calls the whole world- 
proletariat to this, the final struggle! 

Down with the imperialist conspiracy of capital! Long live 
the international republic of proletarian Soviet! 

24 



THE NEW COMMUNIST MANIFESTO 

(From N. Y. Call, September 1, 1919) 

The following is the preamble to the Manifesto 
of the Moscow International congress of last March, 
now made available in complete form in this country 
for the first time. As was stated at the time of the 
printing of the main part of the Manifesto, the con- 
gress was called by the Communist party of Russia 
(the Bolsheviks) and the invitations to various party 
groups was tendered by Lenine on the basis of in- 
formation given him by such men as Boris Rein- 
stein, S. J. Rutgers and others. The word "com- 
munist," as we explained at that time, is exactly 
identical to the word ''Socialist" as used in America, 
the Bolsheviks going back to the old word used by 
Marx and Engels in 1848, because of the disrepute 
that the "ministerial" Sociahsts had cast upon the 
word Socialist, and also to distinguish the real 
Socialists (hke those of Russia, Italy, Switzerland 
and the United States) from the compromisers 
and supporters of imperiaHsm in Germany and 
Sweden and other countries. The Manifesto was 
written by Nicholai Lenine, Leon Trotzky, Zinoviev, 
Tchicherin and Fritz Flatten, a Swiss Socialist. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 369 
PEEAMBLE 

Seventy-two years have gone by since the Com- 
munist party of the world proclaimed its program 
in the form of the Manifesto written by the greatest 
teachers of the proletarian revolution, Karl Marx and 
Frederick Engels. 

Even at that early time, when Communism had 
scarcely come into the arena of conflict, it was 
hounded by the lies, hatred and calumny of the pos- 
sessing classes, who rightly suspected in it their 
mortal enemy. 

During these seven decades Communism has 
traveled a hard road; storms of ascent followed by 
periods of sharp decline; successes, but also severe 
defeats. In spite of all, the development at 
bottom went the way forecast by the Manifesto 
of the Communist party. The epoch of the last 
decisive battle came later than the apostles of the 
social revolution expected and wished. But it has 
come. 

We Communists, representatives of the revolu- 
tionary proletariat of the different countries of Eu- 
rope, America and Asia, assembled in Soviet Mos- 
cow, feel and consider ourselves followers and ful- 
fillers of the program proclaimed seventy-two years 
ago. It is our task now to sum up the practical rev- 
olutionary experience of the working class, to cleanse 
the movement of its admixtures of opportunism and 
social patriotism, and to gather together the forces 
of all the true revolutionary proletarian parties in 



370 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

order to further and hasten the complete victory of 
the Communist revolution. 



THE INEVITABLE WAR 

For a long span of years Socialism predicted the inevitableness 
of the imperialistic war; it perceived the essential cause of this 
war in the insatiable greed of the possessing classes in both camps 
of capitalist nations. 

Two years before the outbreak of the war, at the Congress of 
Basle, the responsible Socialist leaders of all countries branded 
imperiaUsm as the instigator of the coming war, and menaced the 
bovn-geoisie with the thi-eat of the Sociahst revolution — the re- 
taliation of the proletariat for the crimes of militarism. Now, 
after the experience of five years, after history has disclosed the 
predatorylust of Germany and has unmasked the no less criminal 
deeds on the part of the Allies, the state Socialists of the Entente 
nations, together with their govenmients, again and again un- 
mask the deposed German Kaiser. And the German social 
patriots, who in August, 1914, proclaimed the diplomatic White 
Book of the Hohenzollern as the holiest gospel of the people, 
to-day, in vulgar sycophancy, join themselves with the So- 
cialists of the Entente lands to accuse as archcriminal the de- 
posed German monarchy which they formerly served as slaves. 
In this way they hope to erase the memory of their own guilt 
and thus gain the good will of the victors. But alongside the 
dethroned djmasties of the Romanoffs, Hohenzollerns and Haps- 
burgs and capitalistic cliques of these lands, the rulers of France, 
England, Italy and the United States stand revealed in the light 
of unfolding events and diplomatic disclosures in their im- 
measurable vilencss. 

The contradictions of the capitalist system were converted 
by the war into beastly tonnents of hunger and cold, epidemics 
and moral savagery for all mankind. Hereby also the academic 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 371 

quarrel in Socialism o^•cr the tlieory of increasing misery, and 
also of the undermining of cajiitalism through Socialism is now 
determined. Statisticians and teachers of th(> theory of rec- 
ouciUation of tliese contradictions have endeavored for decades 
to gather together from all corners of the earth real and api)arent 
facts which evidence the increasing well-])eing of the working 
class. To-day abj'smal misery is before our eyes, social as well 
as physiological, in all its shocking reality. 

CATASTROPHE OF FINANCE 

Finance-cai)ital, wliich tlirew mankind into the abyss of war, 
has its(!lf suffered catastrophic changes during the course of the 
war. The dei^endcnce of jiaper money upon the material basis 
of production was completely destroyed. More and more losing 
its significance as medium and regulator of capitalistic com- 
modity circulation, paper money becomes merely a means of 
exploitation, robl^ery, of military economic oppression. The 
complete deterioration of paper money now reflects the general 
deadly crisis of capitaUst commodity exchange. 

As free competition was replaced as regulator of production 
and distrilnition in the cliief domains of economy, during the 
decades whi('h preceded the war, hy the system of trusts and 
monopolies, so the exigencies of the war took the regulating role 
out of the hands of tlie monoix)lies and gave it directly to the 
military power. Distribution of raw materials, utilization of 
petroleum from Baku or Rmnania, of coal from Donetz, of 
cereals from the Uki-aine; the fate of German locomotives, 
railroad cars and automobiles, the provisioning of famine- 
stricken Europe with bread and meat — all these basic questions 
of the economic life of the world are no longer regulated Ijy free 
competition, nor j^et by combinations of national and interna- 
tional trusts, but through direct application of miUtary force. 

Just as complete subordination of the power of the state to the 
purposes of finance-capital led mankind to the imperiahstic 
shambles, so finance-capital has, through this mass slaughter, 
completely militarized not alone the state, but also itself. It is 



372 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

no longer able to fulfill its essential economic functions other- 
wise than by means of blood and iron. 



STATE CAPITALISM A FACT 

The absorption by the state of the economic life, so vigorously 
opposed by capitalist Uberalism, has now become a fact. There 
can be no return either to free competition nor to the rule of the 
trusts, syndicates and other economic monsters. The only 
question is who shall be the future mainstay of state production, 
the imperialistic state or the state of the victorious proletariat. 
In other words, shall the entire working humanity become the 
feudal bond servants of the victorious Entente bourgeoisie, 
which, under the name of a League of Nations, aided by an 
"international" army and an "international" navy, here plun- 
ders and murders, there throws a crumb, but everywhere enchains 
the proletariat, with the single aim of maintaining its own rule? 
Or will the working class take into its own hands the disorganized 
and shattered economic life and make certain its reconstruction 
on a Socialist basis? 

PEOLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP 

Only the proletarian dictatorship, which recognizes neither 
inherited nor rights of property but which arises from the needs 
of the hungering masses, can shorten the period of the iireseut 
crisis; and for this purpose it mobilizes the universal duty of 
labor, estabhshes the regime of industrial discipline, this way to 
heal in the course of a few years the open wounds caused by the 
war and also to raise humanity to a new undreamed-of height. 

The national state, which was given a tremendous impulse by 
capitalistic evolution, has become too narrow for the develop- 
ment of the productive forces. And even more untenable has 
become the position of the small states, distributed among the 
great powers of Europe and in other parts of the world. These 
small states came into existence at different times as fragments 
split off the bigger states, as petty currency in payment for ser- 
vices rendered, to serve as strategic buffer states. 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 373 

Thoy, too, havo their dynasties, their rulinp; gangs, tlieir 
imi)criaHstic pretensions, their diplomatic machinations. Tlieir 
illusory independence had until the war precisely the same sup- 
port as the European balance of power, namely, the continuous 
opposition between the two imperialistic camps. The war has 
destroyed this balance. 

The tremendous preponderance of power which the war gave 
to Germany in the beginning compelled these smaller nations 
to seek their welfare and safety under the wings of German 
militarism. After Germany was beaten the bourgeoisie of the 
small nations, together with their patriotic "Socialists," turned 
to the victorious imperialism of the Allies and began to seek 
assurance for their further independent existence in the hypo- 
critical points of the Wilson program. 

At the same time the number of little states has increased; 
out of the unity of the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy, out of 
the different parts of the Czarist empire, new sovereignties have 
formed themselves. And these, as soon as born, jump at each 
other's throats on account of their frontier disputes. Meanwhile, 
the Allied imperialists brought about certain combinations of 
new and old small states through the cement of mutual hatreds 
and general weaknesses. Even while violating the small and 
weak peoples and delivering them to famine and degradation, 
the Entente imperialists, exactly as the imperialists of the Cen- 
tral Powers before them, did not cease to talk of the right of 
self-determination of all peoples, a right which is now entirely 
destroyed in Europe and in the rest of the world. 

PROLETARIANS ONLY CAN SAVE 

Only the proletarian revolution can secure the existence of 
the small nations, a revolution which frees the productive forces 
of all countries from the restrictions of the national states, 
which unites all peoples in the closest economic co-operation on 
the basis of a universal economic plan, and gives even to the 
smallest and weakest peoples the possibility freely and inde- 
pendently to carry on their national culture without detriment 



374 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

to the united and centralized economy of Europe and of the 
whole world. 

The last war, after all a war against the colonies, was at the 
same time a war with the aid of the colonies. To an unprece- 
dented extent the population of the colonies was drawn into the 
European war, Inidans, Arabs, Madagascars battled on the 
European continent — what for? — for their right to remain slaves 
of England or France. Never did capitalist rule show itself more 
shameless, never was the truth of colonial slavery brought into 
such sharp relief. As a consequence we witnessed a series of 
open rebellions and revolutionary ferment in all colonies. In 
Europe itself it was Ireland which reminded us in bloody street 
battles that it is stiU an enslaved country and feels itself as such. 
In Madagascar, in Aimam, and in other comitries, the troops of 
the bourgeois republic have had more than one insurrection of the 
colonial slaves to suppress during the war. In India the revolu- 
tionary movement has not been at a standstill for one day, and 
lately we have witnessed the greatest labor strike in Asia, to 
which the government of Great Britain answered with armored 
cars. 

In this manner the colonial question in its entirety became the 
order of the day not alone on the green table of the diplomatic 
conferences in Paris, but also in the colonies themseh'es. The 
Wilson program, at the very best, calls only for a change in the 
firm name of colonial enslavement. Liberation of the colonies 
can only happen together with liberation of the working class 
of the capitalist states. 

The workers and peasants not only of Annam, Algeria, Ben- 
gal, but also of Persia and Armenia, can gain independent ex- 
istence only after the laborers of England and France have 
overthrown Lloyd George and Clemenceau and taken the power 
into their o^vn hands. Even now in the more advanced colonies 
the battle goes on not only under the flag of national liberation, 
but it assumes also an open and outspoken social character. 
Capitalistic Europe has drawn the backward countries by force 
into the capitalistic whirlpool, and Socialistic Europe will come 
to the aid of the liberated colonies with its technique, its organ- 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 375 

ization, its spiritual influence, in order to facilitate their transition 
into the orderly system of Socialist economy. 

Colonial slaves of Africa and Asia! The hour of triumph of 
the Proletarian Dictatorship of Europe will also be the hour of 
your release! 



II 

In those countries in which the historical development has 
furnished the opportunity, the working class has utilized the 
regime of pohtical democracy for its organization against cap- 
itaUsm. In all countries where the conditions for a workers' 
revolution are not yet ripe, the same process will go on. But the 
great middle layers on the farm lands, as well as in the cities, 
are hindered by cai)italism in their historic development and 
remain stagnant for whole epochs. The peasant of Bavaria and 
Baden who does not look behind his church spire, the small 
French wine-grower who has been ruined by the adulterations 
practiced by the big capitaHsts, the small farmer of America 
plundered and betrayed by bankers and legislators — all these 
social ranks wliich have been shoved aside from the main road 
of development by capitalism, are called on paper by the regime 
of pohtical democracy to the administration of the state. In 
reahty, however, the finance-oligarchy decides all important 
questions which determine the destinies of nations behind the 
back of parliamentary democracy. Particularly was this true 
of the war question. The same applies to the question of peace. 

If the finance-oligarchy considers it advantageous to veil its 
deeds of violence behind parhamentary votes, then the bourgeois 
state has at its command in order to gain its ends all the tradi- 
tions and attainments of former centuries of upper-class rule 
multipUed by the wonders of capitalistic technique: hes, dema- 
gogism, persecution, slander, bribery, calumny and terror. To 
demand of the proletariat, in the final life and death struggle 
^\^th capitalism, that it should follow lamblike the demands of 
bourgeois democracy would be the same as to ask a man who is 
defending his life against robbers to follow the artificial rules of 



376 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

a French duel that have been set by his enemy but not followed 
by him. 

SOVIETS THE MEANS OF THE REVOLUTION 

In an empire of destruction, where not only the means of pro- 
duction and transportation, but also the institutions of political 
democracy, represent bloody ruins, the proletariat must create 
its own forms, to serve above all as a bond of unity for the 
working class and to enable it to accomplish a revolutionary 
intervention in the further development of mankind. Such 
apparatus is represented in the workmen's councils. The old 
parties, the old unions, have proved incapable in person of their 
leaders, to understand, much less to carry out, the tasks which 
the new epoch presents to them. The proletariat created a new 
institution wliich embraces the entire working class, without 
distinction of vocation or political maturity, an elastic form of 
organization capable of continually renewing itself, expanding, 
and of drawing into itself ever new elements, ready to open its 
doors to the working groups of city and village which are near 
to the proletariat. This indispensable autonomous organization 
of the working class in the present struggle and in the future con- 
quests of different lands tests the proletariat and represents the 
greatest inspiration and the mightiest weapon of the proletariat 
of our time. 

THE IMPERIAL STATE COLLAPSES 

The collapse of the imperialistic state, czaristic to most 
democratic, goes on simultaneously with the collapse of the im- 
perialistic military system. The armies of millions, mobilized by 
imperialism, could remain steadfast only so long as the prole- 
tariat remained obedient under the yoke of bourgeoisie. The 
complete breakdown of national unity signifies also an inevitable 
disintegration of the army. 

Thus it happened, first in Russia, then in Austria-Hungary, 
then in Germany. The same also is to be expected in other 
imperiaUstic states. Insurrection of the peasant against the 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 377 

landowner, of laborer against capitalist, of both against the 
monarchic or "democratic" bureaucracy, must lead inevitably 
to the insurrection of soldier against commander, and, further- 
more, to a sharp division between the proletarian and bourgeois 
elements within the army. The imperialistic war which pitted 
nation against nation has passed and is passing into the civil 
war which hues up class against class. 



BOURGEOIS HYPOCRISY 

The outcry of the bourgeois world against the civil war and 
the red terror is the most colossal hypocrisy of which the history 
of pohtical struggles can boast. There would be no civil war if 
the exploiters who have carried mankind to the very brink of 
ruin had not prevented every foi'ward step of the laboring 
masses, if they had not instigated plots and murders and called 
to their aid armed help from outside to maintain or restore their 
predatory privileges. Civil war is forced upon the laboring ^ 
classes by their arch-enemies. 

Conscious of the world-historic character of their mission, the 
enlightened workers strove from the very begimiing of the or- 
ganized Socialist movement for an international union. The 
foundation stone of this union was laid in 1864 in London, in the 
first international. 

The Franco-Prussian war, from which arose the Germany of 
the Hohenzollerns, undermined the First International, giving 
rise at the same time to the national labor parties. 

THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL 

As early as 1889 these parties united at the Congress of Paris 
and organized the Second Inteniational. But during this period 
the center of gravity of the labor movement rested entirely on 
national gromid, confining itself within the realm of national 
parhamentarism to the narrow compass of national states and 
national industries. 

Decades of organizing and labor reformism created a genera- 



378 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

tion of leaders, most of whom gave verbal recognition to the pro- 
gram of social revolution, but denied it in substance. 

They were lost in the swamp of reformism and adaptation to 
the bourgeois state. The opportunistic character of the leading 
parties of the Second International was finally revealed— and 
led to the greatest collapse of the movement in all its history — 
when events required revolutionary methods of warfare from the 
labor parties. 

Just as the war of 1870 dealt a deathblow to the First Inter- 
national by reveaUng that there was not in fact behind the social 
revolutionary program any compact power of the masses, so the 
war of 1914 killed the Second International by showing that 
above the consolidated labor masses there stood labor parties 
which converted themselves into servile organs of the bourgeois 
state. 

Proletarians of all lands! In the war against imperialistic 
barbarity, against monarchy, against the privileged classes, 
against the bourgeois state and bourgeois property, against all 
forms and varieties of social and national oppression — UNITE! 

Under the standard of the Workingmen's Councils, in the 
revolutionary struggle for power and the dictatorship of the pro- 
letariat, proletarians of all countries, UNITE! 



TO THE WORIvERS OF THE WORLD 

DECLARATION OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL 
AGAINST THE VERSAILLES PEACE 

(From the Communist, October 4, 1919) 

The governments which began the war of plunder 
five years ago are making an effort to end it now with 
a predatory peace. The EngHsh, French, and Amer- 
ican capitahsts represented in Versailles have given 
to the representatives of the German capitalists the 
so-called peace terms. Versailles becomes a new 
Brest-Litovsk. Each one of the points of the Ver- 
sailles peace is a noose to choke one or another 
nation. 

The anger and vengeance of the imperialist bour- 
geoisie of the victorious coalition know no bounds. 
The famous organization of the ''League of Nations" 
is being put into practice by the American-Anglo- 
French bourgeoisie against the will of all the nations 
of Europe. The bourgeoisie of the Allied Powers is 
making an effort to cripple Germany. They are 
cutting off from Gcnnany a whole series of terri- 
tories ; they are taking away the coal from Germany, 
and the bread; they wish to take away the mer- 
chant marine, also to force Germany to pay indem- 
nities of enormous quantity. The bourgeoisie of the 



380 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

Allied Powers which in words fought against annexa- 
tions of ahen territory, is now committing a series of 
terrible and cynical annexations. They are trading 
with the colonies which belonged to Germany as 
with cattle. The imperialists of the AlHed Powers 
have armed themselves with knives and are sHcing 
the flesh of Germany. 

But the predatory terms of peace which are dic- 
tated to Germany from Versailles are only one of the 
links in the chain of force used by the Allied Powers 
to imprison the world. At the same moment when 
these imperialists are trying to cripple and choke 
Germany, they are carrying on a murderous attack 
on the Soviet Republic of Hungary. This attack, 
temporarily, has succeeded. 

It is they, the French and English bourgeoisie, 
who are the main instigators of the Roumanian 
soldiers at present carrying their White Guard at- 
tack against our brethren — the Hungarian workers. 

It is they, the representatives of the enlightened 
French and English ''democracy," who are the in- 
stigators of those pogroms let loose upon Red Buda- 
pest. It is they who are inspiring the Russian Black 
Hundreds of Kolchak, Denikine and Krasnov in 
their bloody war against the Russian workers and 
peasants. 

It is they, the Anglo-French bourgeois, who have 
inspired the German White Guard, led by Noske, 
Ebert and Scheidemann, to crush the Bavarian 
Soviet Repubhc. The imperialists of the Alhed 
Powers put a direct preliminary condition to the 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 381 

government of Scheidemann to crush the Soviet 
Power in Munich. 

It is they, the Anglo-French bankers and generals, 
who are disarming the revolutionary soldiers in 
Bulgaria. It is they who are choking the mass 
movement of the peoples and the revolutionary 
spirit in Serbia and Slovakia. 

International gendarmes — such are the Anglo- 
French and American imperiahsts, who claim to be 
the representatives of world ''democracy." 

All illusions are broken. The masks are thrown 
off. Those whom the long and terrible imperialistic 
war has not taught a lesson, these will have to be 
taught by that imperialist peace with which the 
"humanitarians" of Versailles are trying to "enrich" 
the world. The governments which during the four 
and one-half years lied to their people about carrying 
on the war for "self-determination of nations," for 
"independence" of small peoples, for "freedom and 
culture," for "democracy," — these governments are 
now unmasked as arch-criminals, as the worst kind 
of slave-drivers, showing mercy to none. 

The fairy tale of the League of Nations is dying 
without having had a chance to flourish. After the 
Versailles peace terms it will be very difficult to 
catch many workers with the bait of the League of 
Nations. The League of Nations at whose cradle 
stands Clemenceau, the butcher, is unmasked 
before the whole world as a league of murderers, 
who are naihng to the cross the millions of the 
laboring masses of Europe. 



382 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

The Versailles peace, with all its weight, is first of 
all laid upon the working class of Germany. If the 
Versailles peace should work at all, it would mean 
that the working class of Germany would be forced 
to moan under a double pressure of both its own 
bourgeois and the slave-drivers of the other nations. 

Needless to talk of the fact that the sympathy of 
the Communist International, the sympathy of the 
conscious workers of the whole world, is with the 
German working class. The worker-Communist of 
all countries will take the Versailles peace terms as 
a blow to the international proletariat, as an effort 
which can be only put down by the combined 
strength of the proletariat of all countries. 

The present German government, which in words 
protests against the Versailles peace, in fact aids the 
imperiahsts of the Allied Powers to realize their 
hellish purposes in relation to the German working 
class. The executioner Clemenceau has no truer 
servants in Germany than Scheidemann and Ebert. 
The Scheidemann and Ebert Party from the first 
moment of the German revolution humbly danced 
to the tune of the imperialists of the Allied Powers. 
Under the direction of Clemenceau, Scheidemann 
and Ebert sent White Guard armies against Soviet 
Russia. In order to satisfy the imperialists of the 
Alhed Powers, the Social-Democrats under the 
leadership of Ebert and Scheidemann killed Karl 
Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg and with fire and 
guns crushed the great movement of the German 
workers to realize Soviet Power. Fulfilling the 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 383 

directions of the London and Paris exchanges, the 
government of Scheidemann has killed already not 
less than 10,000 workers-Communists of Germany. 
Each time when the wave of the workers' move- 
ment in Germany rose especially high, prepared to 
wash away the govermnent of traitor Social-Demo- 
crats, Scheidemann and Ebert threatened the starved 
workers that if Soviet Power should come to Ger- 
many the Allies would refuse to give bread to the 
German people. 

The Central Committee of the Scheidemann 
Social Democratic Party, in its appeal in connection 
with the Versailles peace, maintains that the Ver- 
sailles ''lesson" is the ''best evidence of the correct 
position of the German Social Democracy on the 
question of defending the fatherland." 

"Socialists of all lands, do you understand at last 
our way of acting at the time of war? " asks Scheide- 
mann in his appeal. 

Oh, hypocrites! Oh, cynics! 

Two robbers in 1914 fell on the same prey. One 
of the robbers proved the more successful. This 
criminal not only grabbed the whole prey which his 
competitor wanted, but went into the pockets of his 
rival. Then the other thief, made benefactor through 
want and having on his face the expression of inno- 
cence, appeals to the world and exclaims, "You see 
the conduct of my rival has shown the entire right- 
eousness of my tactics, is it possible that you do not 
yet understand that we Scheidemanns are whiter 
than the snow of the EngHsh mountains?" 

25 



384 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

The Versailles peace terms have proven to all con- 
scious workers something altogether different. The 
enhghtened workers of the whole world fully realize 
that if the German imperialists had been the victors 
they would have been as unmerciful to the defeated 
as their rivals are now to them. And then most 
likely the Hendersons and Renaudels would use the 
same lying phrases as now Scheidemann and Noske 
are using. 

The Versailles peace terms show us that while 
Imperialism exists in any country, until then force 
and robbery will also exist. The Versailles peace 
terms show the Imperialism of any coalition is equally 
bloodthirsty. No matter how "democratic" the 
leaves which they use for covering Imperialism, it 
remains the incarnation of barbarism and blood lust. 

The Versailles peace terms have shown us that 
social-patriots of all lands have permanently and 
forever become the servants of the bourgeois. The 
Versailles peace terms show how meaningless are the 
hopes of the sympathizers of the Berne yellow 
''International," of Kautzky and his friends, about 
the disarmament under Capitalism, about the good 
and beneficent League of Nations under the wing of 
Wilson. The Versailles peace terms have shown 
that the bourgeois itseK left for the workers of all 
lands only one road — the road of world revolution, 
the road across the corpse of CapitaHsm. 

Workers of France! Workers of England! Work- 
ers of America! Workers of Italy! The Communist 
International appeals to you. Upon you depends the 



/ / 

THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 385 

destiny of tens of m'ilions of workers of Austria and 
Germany. You must say your word now. You 
must pull out of /lie bloody hands of your govern- 
ment that murderous knife which they have put 
over the heads o/ the German and Austrian workers. 
You must show that for you the lessons of the five- 
year war have not been in vain. You must not for- 
get for a morient that the victory of the allied im- 
periahsts ov^r the German and Austrian workers 
means a victory over you, a victory over the workers 
of the whole world, a victory over Socialism. You 
more than any now have in your hands the destiny 
of international Socialism. To you the enlightened 
workers of the world look. And we are sure that you 
will fulfill your duty, against the advice of your own 
Scheideznanns. 

Workers of Germany! Workers of Austria! Now 
you s^e that you have no choice other than the 
immediate overthrow of the government of traitors 
calliig themselves Social-Democrats, and in fact 
acting as the meanest agents of the bourgeoisie. 
Ycu see now where politics of the Noske-Scheide- 
mann t^'pe brought you. You see that your only 
hope lies in the international proletarian revolution. 

But this revolution of the proletariat the Scheide- 
manns and Eberts are trying in every way to crush. 
When the Scheidemanns and Eberts call in your 
name to the international proletariat they will meet 
no answer other than hatred. 

Those people who do not protest by a word against 
the crushing of Soviet Hungary by the armies of the 



386 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

landowners, those people who neir Libau are fighting 
on the side of the German baron; — those people can- 
not count on support from the nternational prole- 
tariat. In your name should toeak, not Count 
Brockdorf von Ranzau, not the tiaitor Landsberg, 
not the executioners, Noske anl Scheidemann. 
While the present German government is in power 
the quarrel between Berlin and Pari; will be only 
between the bourgeoisie of two coalitions. All the 
power in your country must soon go into the hands 
of the workers' Soviets. In your namt, workers, 
Communists must begin to talk. 

Then and only then will you be able to ?ave your 
country, will you be able to count upon fuH support 
from the proleta,riat of all lands. 

The time for indecision has passed. Now ills clear 
to each one of us that it cannot be worse, tKat the 
government of social-traitors has brought you *;0 the 
edge of the precipice. 

Workers of Germany and Austria! Know Ihat 
proletarians of other countries will never believe in 
the German Social-Democracy, that Social-De- 
mocracy which did not utter one word of protest at 
the moment when the government of Wilhelm 
Hohenzollern forced upon Soviet Russia the Biest- 
Litovsk peace. \ 

Workers of Germany and Austria! Know that if 
the Brest-Litovsk peace forced upon Russia in 1918 
collapsed so soon, it is because the Russian workers 
and peasants overthrew the government of tie 
bourgeoisie and social traitors and took the power 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRET AT ON OF HISTORY 387 

into their own hands. Only ckie to this were they 
able comparatively quickly t) break the Brest- 
Litovsk noose. 

World proletarian revolution — this is the only 
savior for the oppressed worlers of the world! 

Dictatorship of the proletaiiat and the crgaiiiza- 
tions of Soviet Power — this is the only es'^ape for 
the proletariat of the whole world from the Versailles 
methods. 

While Capitalism exists there can be no real peace. 
Permanent peace will be possible only on the ruins 
of the bourgeois state. I 

Long live the uprising of the workers £,gainst op- 
pression! Down with the Versailles peace, down 
with the new Brest-Litovsk! Down with ihe govern- 
ment of social-traitors! 

Long live Soviet Power throughout tae entire 
world! 

The Executive Committee of the Communist 
International, G. Zinoviev, Chairman. 



U. S. SOCIALIST REQUEST TO JOIN TAKEN 
UP IN MOSCOW 

(From N. Y. Call, November 30, 1920) 

APPARENT REPLY PRINTED IN RUSSIAN PAPER CON- 
DEMNS lARTY STAND AND PROGRAM HERE — REA- 
SONS TOR ORIGINAL SUPPORT OF THIRD IN- 
TERNATIONAL ARE ATTACKED 

The document printed below is taken from a 
Communist organ entitled The Russian Press Re- 
view, October, 1920, No. 5. It is printed in English 
either in Russia or on the border, and is intended for 
circulation in English-speaking countries. It is the 
first eWdence we have that the application of the 
Socialifet Party for affiliation reached Russia and that 
it was considered. 

Whether this is intended as an official reply we do 
not know. The first paragraph would indicate that 
it was drawn up by the executive officials of the 
Third International. After stating that the ''Execu- 
tive Committee" had received the application of 
affiliation, "accompanied by the resolution adopted 
by referendum," the second paragraph begins with 
the words, "We are in possession also of the report 
of the National Convention of the Socialist Party 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 3S0 

held in New York in May, 1920." The word ''we" 
used in connection with the words ''Executive 
Committee" certainly indicates it is the Executive 
Committee speaking through this document. Our 
comment on the document may be found in the 
editorial columns. 

The document follows: 



Dear Comrades: 

The official notification from the Socialist Party of the United 
States of affiliation to the Communist International, accom- 
panied by the resolution adopted by referendum, has been 
brought before the Executive Committee of the Communist 
International. 

We are in possession also of the report of the National Con- 
vention of the Socialist Party held in New York in May, 1920, 
containing the resolution upon International relations, adopted 
by the convention in place of that previously adopted by referen- 
dum — which latter was again presented as a minority resolution 
by Victor Berger. 

Since the resolutions will be submitted to referendum once 
more, it is necessaiy to examine all three. All that can be said 
of Berger's resolution is, first, that it is honestly reactionary; 
and, second, that we are surprised that it could be offered in a 
convention of a party which calls itself Socialist. 

Concerning the minority resolution — which, except for the 
addition of George Laasbury's opinion of what Lenin thought 
about conditions of affiliation to the Communist International, 
is the same as the resolution adopted by referendum — there is 
more to say. 

It begins with a long preamble condemning the Second Inter- 
national—a formula which has l^ecome so common, even to the 
parties of the Right, that it has ceased to have any meaning. 
The section dealing with the Comnmnist International reads aa 
follows [ItaUcs ours]: 



390 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

" The Socialist Party of the United States, therefore, declares 
itself in support of the Third (Moscow) International, not so 
much because it supports the 'Moscow' programs and methods, but 
because: 

"(a) Moscow is doing something which is really challenging 
to world imperialism. 

" (b) Moscow is threatened by the combined capitalist forces 
of the world simply because it is proletarian. 

"(c) Under these circumstances, whatever we may have to say 
to Moscow afterward, it is the duty of Socialists to stand by it 
now, because its fall will mean the fall of Socialist republic in 
Europe, and also the disappearance of Socialist hopes for years 
to come." 

The reasons stated for affiliation to the Communist Interna- 
tional have nothing to do with Communism, and indeed imply 
very serious reservations concerning what the author calls "Mos- 
cow" programs and methods — by which we take it Communism 
is meant. 



NO REASON SEEN FOR APPLYING TO COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL 

It is, of course, very gratifying to have the sympathy of the 
American Sociahst Party because the Communist International 
is "threatened by the combined capitalist forces of the world." 
This is, however, hardly a valid reason for a party's wislaing to 
join the Communist International, or for the Communist In- 
ternational to accept such a party. But there is no other reason 
given, except that the Communist International is "doing 
something" which is "challenging to world imperialism" just 
what, the author evidently prefers to conceal from the American 
proletariat. 

This resolution evidently is based on a misconception of the 
role of the Communist International. The Communist Interna- 
tional is in no sense a defensive organization. It is an organ of 
aggression, the General Staff of the World Revolution, for the 
forcible overthrow of the capitalist state everjnvhere, and the 
setting up of the dictatorship of the Proletariat. Concerning 



THE SOCIAL INTERl'RETATION OF HISTORY 391 

questions of principle and fundamental aims, it is impossi])lc to 
consider what the American Socialist Party "may have to say 
to Moscow afterwards." 

On the contrary, the Communist International has something 
to say to parties desiring to affiliate, before they are accepted. 

The Communist International is not "Moscow," but a cen- 
tralized and disciphncd organization now comprising the great 
majority of the revolutionary working class parties of the world. 
The Second Congress, just ended, contained representatives of 
the revolutionary vanguard of the workers of all countries. 
There were also present delegates of the French Socialist Party 
and the German Independent Social Democratic party, which 
only a few months ago were engaged in trying to form the 
"Two-and-a-half" International, by means of a conference at 
which the centrist parties would dominate, which would estab- 
lish a basis for resistance to Communism, a center of sabotage 
of the World Revolution. It is this idea which animates the 
Hillquit, or majority, resolution adopted by the Socialist Party 
convention, with the exception that neither the Germans nor the 
French party have ever dared to declare themselves against the 
Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as has been done by the Socialist 
Party of the United States. 

APPLICATION RESULT OP PRESSURE 

This scheme has failed, because the working class of the world 
is in favor of placing itself under the leadership of the Communist 
International and the leaders of the centrist parties, pushed 
onward by pressure of the masses, now come to us desiring ad- 
mission to the Communist International. This is even more 
true of the Hillquits and Lees of the American party, who, 
even while they declare themselves opposed to the principles of 
the Communist International, yet do not dare to withdraw from 
it. 

And to all these parties the Communist International replies: 

The Communist International is not a hotel, where travtillcrs 

may come with their own baggage and carry on their private 



392 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

affairs. The Communist International is an army in wartime; 
volunteers who join the army of revolution must adopt its prin- 
ciples and obey its orders, submit to its discipline. None but 
revolutionary Communist parties are accepted in the Com- 
munist International. They must adopt as their program the 
program of the Communist International — open revolutionary 
mass-struggle for Communism, through the dictatorship of the 
proletariat, by means of workers' Soviets — accepting as binding 
all resolutions of the congresses and executive committee of the 
Communist International. They must create a strongly cen- 
tralized form of organization, a military discipline; all party 
members in public office, in the labor unions, in all forms of 
public activity, must be absolutely subject to the full-powered 
central committee of the party, which is the supreme organ 
directing all the phases of party work. 

They must consistently denounce bourgeois democracy and 
social patriotism, and also the falsehood and hypocrisy of social 
pacifism ; they must systematically demonstrate to the workers 
that without a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist state 
no talk of disarmament, no international arbitration, no League 
of Nations can save mankind from new imperialist wars. 

EXPULSION OF "centrists" URGED 

They must immediately break with reformism and the policy 
of the centrists; they must expel from their ranks all non-revo- 
lutionary elements, all opportunist leaders; they must sever all 
connections with the petty bourgeoisie, and prepare for revolu- 
tionary action, for merciless civil war. 

The report of the May convention of the Socialist Party proves 
very clearly that this party is very far indeed from specification 
above outlined. 

The declaration of principles adopted is an affront to the 
working class. It alone, if indorsed by the membership, is suffi- 
cient to separate the Socialist Party of the United States from 
the revolutionary movement. 

The rejection of the resolution indorsing the dictatorship of 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 393 

the proletnriat is of course inadmissible in any party seeking 
to join the Connnuuist International. And we do not know a 
single Socialist Party in the world which has equalled the action 
of the American party in abolishing from its constitution two 
years after the World War the provision forbidding legislative 
representatives to vote for militaiy appropriations. 

AMERICAN SOCIALISTS DESERT REVOLUTION 

Up to the present the American Socialist Party has been 
considered a centrist party, but it definitely abandons all Socialist 
pretensions, it definitely enters the ranks of the bourgeois reform 
parties, with the adoption of the following declaration: 

"Its (the Sociahst Party's) ultimate aim in poUtics is to secure 
a majority in Congress and in every state legislature, to win the 
principal executive and judicial offices, to become the dominant 
and controlhng political party of the country, in order to accom- 
plish Sociahsm." 

If this childish and antiquated conception of the task of a 
Sociahst Party, which even the yellow Second International — 
from which the American Sociahst Party has indignantly with- 
drawn — did not dare openly to proclaim, is the actual honest 
attitude of the membership of the Socialist Party of the United 
States, after aU that has happened, after the World War, the 
Russian Revolution, and in particular after the year of black 
reaction in the United States, the persecution of revolutionists, 
the expulsion of the Socialists at Albany — then we do not under- 
stand why the American Socialist Party wishes to enter the 
Communist International, why it does not indorse the League 
of Nations, as Meyer London advocates. 

DEMOCRACY ADVOCATES ARE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONISTS 

The centrist parties, the German Independents and the French 
Sociahsts are not yet acceptable for entrance into the Com- 
munist International. Yet they accept the program of mass 
action and dictatorship of the proletariat, based on the Soviets. 
Any party which still advocates political democracy is a thou- 



394 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

sand times worse than these parties; it is a counter-revolutionary, 
a Scheidemann party. 

The convention was dominated by centrist and reactionary 
elements — by the yellow "reformist^politicians," Hillquit, Lee, 
Stedman, O'Neal, Block, Panken; by the "one-hundred-pcr- 
cent Americans," Meyer London, Solomon; by the "state So- 
ciahsts" and inverted social patriot, Victor Berger; by Cannon 
and Saltis [Soltis], Karlin and Berlin [Berlyn] — all of whom have 
no place in a party affiliated to the Communist International 
There was a "Left Wing" — England [Engdahl], Kruse, Tucker, 
Holland, etc. — which demanded affihation to the Communist 
International, and a revolutionary restatement of party prin- 
ciples; but this group was a pitiful minority, its ideas were con- 
fused, permeated by cowardly compromise and petty bourgeois 
jjrejudices. In all the convention not one Communist voice was 
heard. 

But perhaps the most significant action of the reactionary 
machine was to stifle debate and refuse to answer questions con- 
cerning the defense of the Socialist assemblymen expelled at 
Albany. 

POSITION AT ALBANY " TRIAL" DENOUNCED 

For example, the testimony of Assemblyman Louis Waldman 
—still a member of the Socialist Party — shows that he declared 
himself opposed to the establishment of a Soviet Government in 
the United States, that he preferred the government of the state 
of New York — which is a "people's government" and "not a 
capitalist government" — to the Soviet Government; that he 
urges all workers to take part in a war of defense; that he would 
vote for military appropriations, etc. 

This, however, is only the statement of an individual member. 
Take the official defense of the party, the "Brief for the Socialist 
Assemblymen." It apologizes for the presence of foreigners in 
the party by calling them "potential voters," and hastens to 
explain that a new rule requires all party members immediately 
to become citizens. It rejects the general strike as a political 
weapon, on the ground that if there are enough workers to strike 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 395 

for a political rcfonn, there are enough to win it by voting. 
"The Soviet form of government," it says, "seems to be good 
for Russia. The parliamentary form of government seems to 
be good for the United States. . . ." But the most base betrayal 
of Socialism occurs in the passage explaining why the Socialist 
Party sujiports the Soviet Government: 

"We sympathize with the Russian workers, the Russian peas- 
ants, the Russian Socialists, the Russian Communists, in main- 
taining their Soviet Government — not because it is a Soviet 
government, but because it is a government of their own choos- 
ing. Suppose they had adopted a different form of government, 
say one that had sprung from the Constituent Assembly, we 
should not support it any the less." 

Is this, perhaps, what the American Socialist "will have to 
say to Moscow afterward"? Noske and Mannerheim, Lloyd 
George and Wilson could indorse this treacherous logic with a 
clear conscience. 

The "Socialist" aldennan of New York, who voted for the 
Tjiberty Loan, who voted for money to erect the Victory Arch; 
the "Socialist" congressman, Meyer London, who congratulated 
the King of Italy upon his birthday, who voted for the war 
credits; the "Socialist" legislators at Allxany, who declared 
pubhcly against Communism; the "Socialist" district attorney 
of Milwaukee, who imprisoned workingmen for breaking up a 
religious meeting; the "Socialist" officials who called in the 
Chicago police to expel the Communists from the 1919 Con- 
vention — all these "comrades" are still members of the So- 
cialist Party of the United States: in fact, they controlled the 
May Convention. 

. It will be pointed out that the selection of Eugene Debs as 
presidential candidate proves that the American Socialist Party 
is a revolutionary ])ai-ty. 



DECEPTION PRACTICED BY REVOLUTIONAnY PHTIARES 

It is a characteristic tactic of centrist parties to make use of 
revolutionary phrases, of revolutionary personalities, to deceive 



396 THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 

the working masses, to persuade them to follow opportunist 
leaders. 

Comrade Debs has a fine revolutionary record. All the more 
shame to "Socialist" leaders of the American party, who have 
exploited the imprisonment of Debs for their own selfish, non- 
revolutionary purposes, and who, in nominating him for Presi- 
dent, once more attempt to cover up and justify their compromis- 
ing and cowardly attitude — at the same time refusing to consider 
Comrade Debs' proposal for unity with the Communists. 

Nowhere in the world is the persecution of Communists, of 
true Socialists, more bitter on the part of the capitalist class. 
Thousands of our Comrades have been deported, imprisoned for 
long terms, tortured and beaten, in the United States. In Amer- 
ica alone, out of all the non-revolutionary countries, the Com- 
munist movement is illegal, must function underground — those 
who are Communists remain so at the risk of their liberty, theu" 
lives. 

The Socialist Party of the United States submits to this 
terrorism; it endeavors to prove itself harmless to the capitalist 
dictatorship, non-revolutionary — and succeeds rather well. 
Swallowing the ejection of its representatives from Congress, 
from the State Legislatures, it praises the government, indorses 
ever more warmly the bourgeois state system, helping in this 
way to escape the consequences of defending the working class 
against the capitalist system. And the convention rejects a 
resolution of sympathy for Larkin and Gitlow, Coromunist 
fighters, taken prisoners in the class war. 

If the majority of the American Socialist Party indorses the 
decisions of this convention, then we have but one thing to say 
to those honest workers who still may remain within the party: 

You are being deceived. The SociaHst Party of the United 
States is not a working-class party, but an auxihary organization 
of the American bourgeoisie, or world imperialism. It is not 
leading you toward Socialism — it is betraying you to the counter- 
revolution. 

Workers! Leave the American Socialist Party. It is your 
enemy and ours. Already in America there is a revolutionary 



THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 397 

party, the United Commimist pnrty, the American section of 
the Communist International. These are our true comrades. 
Thousands of them have suffered for the revolution. Tliis is the 
party of the revolutionary working class. 

Join the United Communist party! 

And to the leaders, the officials of the Socialist Party of the 
United States — the Bergers, Hillquits, Londons, Lees — we have 
only this to say: 

You have disgraced the name of "Socialists." You apply 
for admission to the Communist International; we answer by 
declaring war upon you traitors to the working class, who, on the 
eve of the world revolution, sold out to the enemy to save your 
skins. 



THE END 



RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
TO-i^ 202 Main Library 



LOAN PERIOD 1 
HOME USE 


2 : 


3 


4 


5 I 


b 


ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 

1 -month loans moy be renewed by calling 642-3405 

6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books to Circulation 

Desk 

Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due dote 


DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 


Pf .• 






L - ^J 






JAN 1 4 1992 












^^uro nisc 






May 2 5 ,on^ 












'VUL/\ / IQf^ 































UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
FORM NO. DD6, 40m, 3/78 BERKELEY, CA 94720 



J 



U.C. BERKELEY UBRARII 




CDD7QDfl'=iSS 



^^'' 






C^' 



^-t 







■^ 



i41^y 



iXJ 



